Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features.

Upside-down inversion disrupts the processing of spatial relations between the features of a face, while largely preserving local feature analysis. However, recent studies on face inversion failed to observe a clear dissociation between relational and featural processing. To resolve these discrepancies and clarify how inversion affects face perception, the authors monitored inversion effects separately for vertical and horizontal distances between features. Inversion dramatically declined performance in the vertical-relational condition, but it impaired featural and horizontal-relational performance only moderately. Identical observations were made whether upright and inverted trials were blocked or randomly interleaved. The largest performance decrement was found for vertical relations even when faces were rotated by 90 degrees. Evidence that inversion dramatically disrupts the ability to extract vertical but not horizontal feature relations supports the view that inversion qualitatively changes face perception by rendering some of the processes activated by upright faces largely ineffective.

[1]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  M. Endo Perception of Upside-Down Faces: An Analysis from the Viewpoint of Cue Saliency , 1986 .

[3]  J. Keenan,et al.  Perception of global facial geometry in the inversion effect and prosopagnosia , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology When Inverted Faces Are Recognized: the Role of Configural Information in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[5]  D. Maurer,et al.  Configural Face Processing Develops more Slowly than Featural Face Processing , 2002, Perception.

[6]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  Expert face coding: Configural and component coding of own-race and other-race faces , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[9]  P. Bennett,et al.  Inversion Leads to Quantitative, Not Qualitative, Changes in Face Processing , 2004, Current Biology.

[10]  V. Stone,et al.  The Body-Inversion Effect , 2003, Psychological science.

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

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

[13]  V Bruce,et al.  Configural Features in the Context of Upright and Inverted Faces , 2001, Perception.

[14]  J. Keenan,et al.  Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[15]  David K. A. Barnes,et al.  correction: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

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

[17]  I. Gauthier,et al.  How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? , 2002, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[18]  J. Sergent An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

[19]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Newborns' preference for faces: what is crucial? , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[20]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features , 2007 .

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

[22]  A. Freire,et al.  Effects of Face Configuration Change on Shape Perception: A New Illusion , 1999, Perception.

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

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

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

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

[27]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[28]  J. Hochberg,et al.  Recognition of faces: I. An exploratory study , 1967 .

[29]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Face-specific configural processing of relational information. , 2006, British journal of psychology.

[30]  Q. Vuong,et al.  The Respective Role of Low and High Spatial Frequencies in Supporting Configural and Featural Processing of Faces , 2005, Perception.

[31]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape–based model of vision , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  T. Valentine Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[33]  Peter K. Machamer Observation , 1911, BMJ : British Medical Journal.