Face Recognition in Human: The Roles of Featural and Configurational Processing

During the last few decades, face perception has emerged as a prevailing issue in social research. Face recognition is a fundamental and crucial skill for communicating and understanding in human society. Fortunately, most adults are able to recognize faces to identify a particular face and to discriminate among faces at a glance, begging questions of the nature of the mechanisms that underlie such face recognition. It has been established that the processing involved in face recognition likely differs qualitatively from that involved in recognizing other objects. Indeed, responses to faces are more affected by inversion than are those to non-face objects. When faces are presented upside down, it is much harder to identify them accurately. Configurational properties are disrupted by presenting visual objects upside down or by laterally offsetting the top and bottom halves of objects, and greater disruption has been found when those objects are faces than when they are other types of objects (Maurer et al., 2002). Clinical studies have provided additional evidence of the special nature of face processing. Individuals with prosopagnosia experience difficulties with discriminating among human faces. They are able to perceive a face as face, but are unable to distinguish among different persons (Banich, 2004). Their deficit is specific to faces and derives neither from problems with visual perception nor from memory impairment. Neuroimaging studies have also indicated that the neural correlates involved in face recognition are distinct from those involved in the recognition of other objects. Face processing can be divided into two types: configurational and featural (Maurer et al., 2007). Configurational processing refers to perceptions of the internal relationships among features. This approach contrasts with featural, analytic, piecemeal, or parts-based processing, which refers to perceptions of the shapes of individual features. The relative contributions of the two types of processing to face recognition and the interaction between them remain controversial. Although researchers have proposed different hypotheses about the mechanisms by which faces are processed on the basis of experimental findings, this issue is unresolved. In the context of the remarkable progress in brain imaging technology, recent studies have investigated the neural correlates of featural and configurational face processing, offering biological evidence related to behavioral phenomena. Consistent with these findings, this chapter addresses how humans recognize faces by reviewing the relevant findings from several research areas. In particular, the chapter focuses on the

[1]  M. Sarlo,et al.  The time course of implicit processing of facial features: An event-related potential study , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Yue-jia Luo,et al.  The time course of implicit processing of erotic pictures: An event-related potential study , 2011, Brain Research.

[3]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Holistic processing impairment can be restricted to faces in acquired prosopagnosia: evidence from the global/local Navon effect. , 2011, Journal of neuropsychology.

[4]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual integrality of componential and configural information in faces , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  J. Kwon,et al.  Processing of facial configuration in individuals at ultra-high risk for schizophrenia , 2010, Schizophrenia Research.

[6]  Sohee Park,et al.  Facial expression and face orientation processing in schizophrenia , 2009, Psychiatry Research.

[7]  Morris Moscovitch,et al.  A comparative case study of face recognition: The contribution of configural and part-based recognition systems, and their interaction , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  Philip C. Ko,et al.  Unilateral damage to the right cerebral hemisphere disrupts the apprehension of whole faces and their component parts , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  Hidehiko Takahashi 40. Functional deficits in the extrastriate body area during observation of sports-related actions in schizophrenia , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[10]  Richard W Morris,et al.  Emotional face processing in schizophrenia. , 2009, Current opinion in psychiatry.

[11]  K. Marwick,et al.  Social cognition in schizophrenia: a review of face processing. , 2008, British medical bulletin.

[12]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Featural and configural face processing differentially modulate ERP components , 2008, Brain Research.

[13]  S. Rossell,et al.  Configural face processing in schizophrenia , 2008, Schizophrenia Research.

[14]  F. Mast,et al.  Featural and configural face processing strategies: evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study , 2008, Neuroreport.

[15]  J. Kwon,et al.  Deficit of theory of mind in individuals at ultra-high-risk for schizophrenia , 2008, Schizophrenia Research.

[16]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  J. Kwon,et al.  Dysfunction in Configural Face Processing in Patients With Schizophrenia , 2007, Schizophrenia bulletin.

[18]  D. Penn,et al.  Emotion perception and social skill over the course of psychosis: A comparison of individuals “at-risk” for psychosis and individuals with early and chronic schizophrenia spectrum illness , 2007, Cognitive neuropsychiatry.

[19]  M. Brüne,et al.  Theory of mind—evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[20]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  Kenneth F. Valyear,et al.  The fusiform face area is not sufficient for face recognition: Evidence from a patient with dense prosopagnosia and no occipital face area , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  B. Rossion,et al.  Recovery from adaptation to facial identity is larger for upright than inverted faces in the human occipito-temporal cortex , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Domain specificity in visual cortex. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[24]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex , 2006, NeuroImage.

[25]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  High-resolution imaging reveals highly selective nonface clusters in the fusiform face area , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Comparing neural correlates of configural processing in faces and objects: An ERP study of the Thatcher illusion , 2006, NeuroImage.

[27]  C. Nelson,et al.  Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation , 2006, Perception.

[28]  Catherine J. Mondloch,et al.  What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[29]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces? , 2006, Developmental science.

[30]  René S. Kahn,et al.  Strange feelings: Do amygdala abnormalities dysregulate the emotional brain in schizophrenia? , 2005, Progress in Neurobiology.

[31]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[32]  Elena Antonova,et al.  The relationship between brain structure and neurocognition in schizophrenia: a selective review , 2004, Schizophrenia Research.

[33]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Holistic Processing of Faces in Preschool Children and Adults , 2003, Psychological science.

[34]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Normal Recognition of Emotion in a Prosopagnosic , 2003, Perception.

[35]  J. Lieberman,et al.  Implications for the neural basis of social cognition for the study of schizophrenia. , 2003, The American journal of psychiatry.

[36]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Uta Frith,et al.  Theory of mind , 2001, Current Biology.

[38]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Neuropsychological evidence for a topographical learning mechanism in parahippocampal cortex , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[39]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Prosopagnosia: A case study involving problems in processing configural information , 2001, Brain and Cognition.

[40]  G. Pike,et al.  Developmental Changes in the Effect of Inversion: Using a Picture Book to Investigate Face Recognition , 2001, Perception.

[41]  B. de Gelder,et al.  Configural face processes in acquired and developmental prosopagnosia: evidence for two separate face systems? , 2000, Neuroreport.

[42]  Roberto Cabeza,et al.  Features are Also Important: Contributions of Featural and Configural Processing to Face Recognition , 2000, Psychological science.

[43]  G. Hole,et al.  Featural and Configurational Processes in the Recognition of Faces of Different Familiarity , 2000, Perception.

[44]  M. Eimer The face‐specific N170 component reflects late stages in the structural encoding of faces , 2000, Neuroreport.

[45]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[46]  L. Deouell,et al.  STRUCTURAL ENCODING AND IDENTIFICATION IN FACE PROCESSING: ERP EVIDENCE FOR SEPARATE MECHANISMS , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[47]  M. Tarr,et al.  The N170 occipito‐temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face‐specific processes in the human brain , 2000, Neuroreport.

[48]  B. Duchaine,et al.  Developmental prosopagnosia with normal configural processing , 2000, Neuroreport.

[49]  D. Maurer,et al.  Face Perception During Early Infancy , 1999 .

[50]  V. Goffaux,et al.  Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: an event-related potentials study , 1999, Biological Psychology.

[51]  L. Deouell,et al.  Cognitive Neuroscience: Selective visual streaming in face recognition: evidence from developmental prosopagnosia , 1999 .

[52]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The Effect of Face Inversion on Activity in Human Neural Systems for Face and Object Perception , 1999, Neuron.

[53]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Stimulus inversion and the responses of face and object-sensitive cortical areas. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[54]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Face recognition in young children : When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts , 1998 .

[55]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area , 1998, Cognition.

[56]  V. Bruce,et al.  Local and Relational Aspects of Face Distinctiveness , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[57]  G. Winocur,et al.  What Is Special about Face Recognition? Nineteen Experiments on a Person with Visual Object Agnosia and Dyslexia but Normal Face Recognition , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[58]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[59]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[60]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological Studies of Face Perception in Humans , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[61]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial–relational information in faces. , 1996 .

[62]  Raya Ariel,et al.  Congenital Visual Agnosia and Prosopagnosia in a Child: A Case Report , 1996, Cortex.

[63]  C. Frith,et al.  Schizophrenia, symptomatology and social inference: Investigating “theory of mind” in people with schizophrenia , 1995, Schizophrenia Research.

[64]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  The functional organization of human extrastriate cortex: a PET-rCBF study of selective attention to faces and locations , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[65]  S. Carey,et al.  Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children , 1994 .

[66]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and Configuration of Faces , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[67]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[68]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline , 1991, Cognition.

[69]  D. Levine,et al.  Prosopagnosia: A defect in visual configural processing , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

[70]  V. Bruce,et al.  Mental rotation of faces , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[71]  A. Young,et al.  Configurational Information in Face Perception , 1987, Perception.

[72]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[73]  S. Carey,et al.  From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. , 1977, Science.

[74]  H. McConachie,et al.  Developmental Prosopagnosia. A Single Case Report , 1976, Cortex.

[75]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[76]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[77]  Irene Leo,et al.  How face specialization emerges in the first months of life. , 2007, Progress in brain research.

[78]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[79]  C. Correll,et al.  The schizophrenia prodrome revisited: a neurodevelopmental perspective. , 2003, Schizophrenia bulletin.

[80]  Sam S. Rakover,et al.  Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[81]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.