Are face representations viewpoint dependent? A stereo advantage for generalising across different views of faces

Almost all previous studies of face recognition have found that matching the same face depicted from different viewpoints incurs both reaction time and accuracy costs. This has been interpreted as evidence that the underlying neural representations of faces are viewpoint-specific, but such a conclusion depends on the experimental data being an accurate reflection of real-world viewpoint generalisation. An equally plausible explanation for poor viewpoint generalisation in experimental situations is that important information that is normally used to generalize across views in real-world settings is not available in the experiment. Stereoscopic information about the three-dimensional structure of the face is systematically misleading in nearly all previous investigations of face recognition, since a face depicted on a computer monitor contains explicit stereoscopic information that the face is flat. The current experiment demonstrates that viewpoint costs are reduced by depicting the face with stereoscopic three-dimensionality (compared to a synoptically presented face), raising the possibility that the viewpoint costs found in face recognition experiments might be a better reflection of the information that is typically unavailable in the experimental stimuli than of the underlying neural representation of facial identity.

[1]  M. Ernst,et al.  Focus cues affect perceived depth. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[2]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognition of unfamiliar faces , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Viewpoint Dependency in Visual Object Recognition Does Not Necessarily Imply Viewer-Centered Representation , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Sheng He,et al.  Viewer-Centered Object Representation in the Human Visual System Revealed by Viewpoint Aftereffects , 2005, Neuron.

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

[6]  Alan Johnston,et al.  Motion as a cue for viewpoint invariance , 2005 .

[7]  Otto H. MacLin,et al.  Figural aftereffects in the perception of faces , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  S. Edelman,et al.  Differential Processing of Objects under Various Viewing Conditions in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 1999, Neuron.

[9]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Stimulus-specific effects in face recognition over changes in viewpoint , 1998, Vision Research.

[10]  Nikolaus F. Troje,et al.  How is bilateral symmetry of human faces used for recognition of novel views? , 1998, Vision Research.

[11]  A. Young,et al.  Transfer between two- and three-dimensional representations of faces , 2006 .

[12]  T. Valentine,et al.  Recognizing Unfamiliar Faces: The Effects of Distinctiveness and View , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[13]  G. Rhodes,et al.  View-Specific Coding of Face Shape , 2006 .

[14]  P. Schyns,et al.  Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition , 1997, Cognition.

[15]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[16]  C. Liu,et al.  Does Face Recognition Rely on Encoding of 3-D Surface? Examining the Role of Shape-from-Shading and Shape-from-Stereo , 2000, Perception.

[17]  C. Liu,et al.  The use of 3D information in face recognition , 2006, Vision Research.

[18]  D I Perrett,et al.  Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  J J Koenderink,et al.  On So-Called Paradoxical Monocular Stereoscopy , 1994, Perception.

[20]  D Kersten,et al.  Viewpoint-Dependent Recognition of Familiar Faces , 1999, Perception.

[21]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Visual object recognition. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[22]  W. Hayward After the viewpoint debate: where next in object recognition? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  Quoc C. Vuong,et al.  A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks , 2006 .

[24]  H. Wilson,et al.  Size-invariant but viewpoint-dependent representation of faces , 2006, Vision Research.

[25]  Brian J. Stankiewicz Just another view , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Quoc C Vuong,et al.  A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks. , 2010, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Darren Burke,et al.  Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis , 2005 .

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

[29]  G. Pike,et al.  Recognizing moving faces: The relative contribution of motion and perspective view information. , 1997 .

[30]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[31]  R Lawson,et al.  Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[32]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  BOLD Activity during Mental Rotation and Viewpoint-Dependent Object Recognition , 2002, Neuron.