Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

We sought to elucidate the behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of face processing, in adults and infants, by manipulating either the featural or configural information within the face. Two different experiments are reported. In these experiments, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from the scalp while adult, 8-month-old, and 4-month-old participants completed configural-change and featural-change face tasks. The infants also completed a behavioral visual paired-comparison task with featural and configural face changes. ERP results reveal hemispheric differences in processing featural but not configural changes for the N170 in adults. Furthermore, featural and configural changes are processed differently within the right and left hemispheres. The right hemisphere N170 is significantly greater for configural compared to featural changes. The left hemisphere N170, however, exhibits the opposite effect. Infant data suggest that similar to adults, 8-month-old, but not 4-month-old participants, exhibit similar hemispheric differences between featural and configural changes for the P400 component. Behavioral results suggest increased sensitivity to both featural and configural face changes in 8-month-olds compared to 4-month-olds.

[1]  O. Pascalis,et al.  Plasticity of face processing in infancy. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Markus Kiefer,et al.  A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: evidence from a cross-cultural study , 2004, Cognition.

[3]  Leslie B. Cohen,et al.  Beyond U-Shaped Development in Infants' Processing of Faces: An Information-Processing Account , 2004 .

[4]  Mark H Johnson,et al.  Development of face-sensitive event-related potentials during infancy: a review. , 2003, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Cortical specialisation for face processing: face-sensitive event-related potential components in 3- and 12-month-old infants , 2003, NeuroImage.

[6]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  When Is a Face Not a Face? The Effects of Misorientation on Mechanisms of Face Perception , 2003 .

[8]  J. Stiles,et al.  The impact of early unilateral brain injury on perceptual organization and visual memory , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

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

[10]  O. Pascalis,et al.  Is Face Processing Species-Specific During the First Year of Life? , 2002, Science.

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

[12]  M. Tarr,et al.  Expertise Training with Novel Objects Leads to Left-Lateralized Facelike Electrophysiological Responses , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  J. Tanaka,et al.  An electrophysiological comparison of visual categorization and recognition memory , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[14]  Olivier Pascalis,et al.  Specialization of Neural Mechanisms Underlying Face Recognition in Human Infants , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  S. Bentin,et al.  Domain specificity versus expertise: factors influencing distinct processing of faces , 2002, Cognition.

[16]  N. Sagiv,et al.  Structural Encoding of Human and Schematic Faces: Holistic and Part-Based Processes , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[18]  C. Genovese,et al.  A functional MRI study of face recognition in patients with prosopagnosia , 2001, Neuroreport.

[19]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[21]  C. Nelson.  The Development and Neural Bases of Face Recognition , 2001 .

[22]  Leslie B. Cohen,et al.  Do 7-month-old infants process independent features or facial configurations? , 2001 .

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

[24]  J. Tanaka,et al.  A Neural Basis for Expert Object Recognition , 2001, Psychological science.

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

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

[27]  G. Schwarzer,et al.  Development of face processing: the effect of face inversion. , 2000, Child development.

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

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

[30]  C. Nelson,et al.  Brain activity differentiates face and object processing in 6-month-old infants. , 1999, Developmental psychology.

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

[32]  C Umiltà,et al.  Preferential orienting to faces in newborns: a temporal-nasal asymmetry. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Inversion superiority in visual agnosia may be common to a variety of orientation polarised objects besides faces , 1998, Vision Research.

[34]  M. L. Howe,et al.  The ebb and flow of infant attentional preferences: evidence for long-term recognition memory in 3-month-olds. , 1998, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[35]  Joseph Dien,et al.  Issues in the application of the average reference: Review, critiques, and recommendations , 1998 .

[36]  Christine Deruelle,et al.  Do the right and left hemispheres attend to the same visuospatial information within a face in infancy , 1998 .

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

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

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

[40]  J. Richards,et al.  Effects of attention on infants' preference for briefly exposed visual stimuli in the paired-comparison recognition-memory paradigm. , 1997, Developmental psychology.

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

[42]  D. Jeffreys.  Evoked Potential Studies of Face and Object Processing , 1996 .

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

[44]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Face perception and within-category discrimination in prosopagnosia , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[45]  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.

[46]  R. Rafal,et al.  Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

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

[49]  R. Kestenbaum,et al.  The recognition and categorization of upright and inverted emotional expressions by 7-month-old infants , 1990 .

[50]  S. de Schonen,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetry in a face discrimination task in infants. , 1990, Child development.

[51]  G. Rhodes.  Looking at Faces: First-Order and Second-Order Features as Determinants of Facial Appearance , 1988, Perception.

[52]  E. W. Ames,et al.  A multifactor model of infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. , 1988 .

[53]  L B Cohen,et al.  Developmental change in infants' perception of correlations among attributes. , 1986, Child development.

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

[55]  Michael A. Hunter,et al.  Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. , 1983 .

[56]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Development of differential recognition for own- and other-race faces. , 1982, The Journal of psychology.

[57]  P. Thompson,et al.  Margaret Thatcher: A New Illusion , 1980, Perception.

[58]  C. Sophian.  Habituation Is Not Enough: Novelty Preferences, Search, and Memory in Infancy. , 1980 .

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

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

[61]  E. N. Sokolov,et al.  Perception and the Conditioned Reflex , 1965 .

[62]  Brian J. Wiltgen,et al.  Expert face processing requires visual input to the right hemisphere during infancy , 2022 .