Is the Fusiform Face Area Specialized for Faces, Individuation, or Expert Individuation?

Several brain imaging studies have identified a region of fusiform gyrus (FG) that responds more strongly to faces than common objects. The precise functional role of this fusiform face area (FFA) is, however, a matter of dispute. We sought to distinguish among three hypotheses concerning FFA function: face specificity, individuation, and expert individuation. According to the face-specificity hypothesis, the FFA is specialized for face processing. Alternatively, the FFA may be specialized for individuating visually similar items within a category (the individuation hypothesis) or for individuating within categories with which a person has expertise (the expert-individuation hypothesis). Our results from two experiments supported the face-specificity hypothesis. Greater FFA activation to faces than Lepidoptera, another homogeneous object class, occurred during both free viewing and individuation, with similar FFA activation to Lepidoptera and common objects (Experiment 1). Furthermore, during individuation of Lepidoptera, 83 of activated FG voxels were outside the face FG region and only 15 of face FG voxels were activated. This pattern of results suggests that distinct areas may individuate faces and Lepidoptera. In Experiment 2, we tested Lepidoptera experts using the same experimental design. Again, the results supported the face-specificity hypothesis. Activation to faces in the FFA was greater than to both Lepidoptera and objects with little overlap between FG areas activated by faces and Lepidoptera. Our results suggest that distinct populations of neurons in human FG may be tuned to the features needed to individuate the members of different object classes, as has been reported in monkey inferotemporal cortex, and that the FFA contains neurons tuned for individuating faces.

[1]  S. Lederman,et al.  Haptic face identification activates ventral occipital and temporal areas: An fMRI study , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[2]  Philip C. Ko,et al.  Improvement of a face perception deficit via subsensory galvanic vestibular stimulation , 2005, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[3]  M. Tarr,et al.  Learning to see faces and objects , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  A. Ishai,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2001, Science.

[5]  J. Tanaka.  The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  Joan Y. Chiao,et al.  Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[8]  I. Bushnell,et al.  Mother's face recognition in newborn infants: learning and memory , 2001 .

[9]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

[10]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Hemispheric Asymmetries for Whole-Based and Part-Based Face Processing in the Human Fusiform Gyrus , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  N. Kanwisher.  Domain specificity in face perception , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  M. Tarr,et al.  FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[14]  M. Tarr,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area is Part of a Network that Processes Faces at the Individual Level , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  M. Tarr,et al.  DOES VISUAL SUBORDINATE-LEVEL CATEGORISATION ENGAGE THE FUNCTIONALLY DEFINED FUSIFORM FACE AREA? , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[17]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. I: Potentials generated in occipitotemporal cortex by face and non-face stimuli. , 1999, Cerebral cortex.

[18]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. III: Effects of top-down processing on face-specific potentials. , 1999, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  R. Dolan,et al.  Contrast polarity and face recognition in the human fusiform gyrus , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  M. Tarr,et al.  Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[22]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus: fMRI study. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  T. Allison,et al.  Face-Specific Processing in the Human Fusiform Gyrus , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  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.

[25]  M. Tarr,et al.  Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging , 1997, Current Biology.

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

[27]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

[28]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The neural regions sustaining object recognition and naming , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  T. Allison,et al.  Differential Sensitivity of Human Visual Cortex to Faces, Letterstrings, and Textures: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  M. Farah.  Is face recognition ‘special’? Evidence from neuropsychology , 1996, Behavioural Brain Research.

[31]  T. Allison,et al.  Face-sensitive regions in human extrastriate cortex studied by functional MRI. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  R. Malach,et al.  Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  M. Farah,et al.  The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms , 1995, Vision Research.

[34]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys , 1995, Current Biology.

[35]  T. Allison,et al.  Human extrastriate visual cortex and the perception of faces, words, numbers, and colors. , 1994, Cerebral cortex.

[36]  E. Renzi,et al.  Prosopagnosia can be associated with damage confined to the right hemisphere—An MRI and PET study and a review of the literature , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  T. Allison,et al.  Face recognition in human extrastriate cortex. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[38]  G. Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.

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

[40]  T. Bower,et al.  Newborns Form “Prototypes” in Less Than 1 Minute , 1993 .

[41]  J. Sergent,et al.  Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. , 1992, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[43]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  E. Renzi,et al.  Apperceptive and Associative Forms of Prosopagnosia , 1991, Cortex.

[45]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[46]  E. Warrington,et al.  Visual associative agnosia: a clinico-anatomical study of a single case. , 1986, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

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

[48]  G. V. Van Hoesen,et al.  Prosopagnosia , 1982, Neurology.

[49]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[50]  H. P. Bahrick,et al.  Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. , 1975 .

[51]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[52]  M. A. Peterson,et al.  Perception of Faces , Objects , and Scenes : Analytic and Holistic Processes , 2004 .

[53]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[55]  G. Rhodes.  Superportraits: Caricatures and Recognition , 1996 .

[56]  R. Desimone.  Face-Selective Cells in the Temporal Cortex of Monkeys , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[57]  M. Harries,et al.  Visual Processing of Faces in Temporal Cortex: Physiological Evidence for a Modular Organization and Possible Anatomical Correlates , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[58]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[59]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .