Watching the brain recalibrate: Neural correlates of renormalization during face adaptation

ABSTRACT The face perception system flexibly adjusts its neural responses to current face exposure, inducing aftereffects in the perception of subsequent faces. For instance, adaptation to expanded faces makes undistorted faces appear compressed, and adaptation to compressed faces makes undistorted faces appear expanded. Such distortion aftereffects have been proposed to result from renormalization, in which the visual system constantly updates a prototype according to the adaptors’ characteristics and evaluates subsequent faces relative to that. However, although consequences of adaptation are easily observed in behavioral aftereffects, it has proven difficult to observe renormalization during adaptation itself. Here we directly measured brain responses during adaptation to establish a neural correlate of renormalization. Given that the face‐evoked occipito‐temporal P2 event‐related brain potential has been found to increase with face prototypicality, we reasoned that the adaptor‐elicited P2 could serve as an electrophysiological indicator for renormalization. Participants adapted to sequences of four distorted (compressed or expanded) or undistorted faces, followed by a slightly distorted test face, which they had to classify as undistorted or distorted. We analysed ERPs evoked by each of the adaptors and found that P2 (but not N170) amplitudes evoked by consecutive adaptor faces exhibited an electrophysiological pattern of renormalization during adaptation to distorted faces: P2 amplitudes evoked by both compressed and expanded adaptors significantly increased towards asymptotic levels as adaptation proceeded. P2 amplitudes were smallest for the first adaptor, significantly larger for the second, and yet larger for the third adaptor. We conclude that the sensitivity of the occipito‐temporal P2 to the perceived deviation of a face from the norm makes this component an excellent tool to study adaptation‐induced renormalization. HIGHLIGHTSThe face‐evoked P200 ERP component is sensitive to perceived face normality.Consecutive distorted adaptor faces induce increasingly large P2 amplitudes.P2 adaptation effect indicates renormalization during adaptation.Innovative approach to investigating the nature of neural face coding mechanisms.

[1]  R. Jenkins,et al.  I Thought You Were Looking at Me , 2006, Psychological science.

[2]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Distinguishing norm-based from exemplar-based coding of identity in children: evidence from face identity aftereffects. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Éva M. Bankó,et al.  How the Visual Cortex Handles Stimulus Noise: Insights from Amblyopia , 2013, PloS one.

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

[5]  Éva M. Bankó,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of visual adaptation to faces and body parts in humans. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[6]  E. McKone,et al.  Face Aftereffects Predict Individual Differences in Face Recognition Ability , 2012, Psychological science.

[7]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170 , 2008, NeuroImage.

[8]  C. Magee,et al.  Short Sleep Duration Is Associated with Risk of Future Diabetes but Not Cardiovascular Disease: a Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  Face aftereffects involve local repulsion, not renormalization. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[10]  Elinor McKone,et al.  Aftereffects support opponent coding of face gender. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[11]  Stella J. Faerber,et al.  Early temporal negativity is sensitive to perceived (rather than physical) facial identity , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Bethany S. Jurs,et al.  Adaptation modulates the electrophysiological substrates of perceived facial distortion: Support for opponent coding , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

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

[14]  K. Fujii,et al.  Visualization for the analysis of fluid motion , 2005, J. Vis..

[15]  Éva M. Bankó,et al.  Dissociating the Effect of Noise on Sensory Processing and Overall Decision Difficulty , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Gyula Kovács,et al.  Repetition suppression – An integrative view , 2016, Cortex.

[17]  B. Murphy,et al.  Adaptation to natural facial categories , .

[18]  Markus F. Neumann,et al.  Repetition effects in human ERPs to faces , 2016, Cortex.

[19]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[20]  Richard N Henson,et al.  Repetition suppression to faces in the fusiform face area: A personal and dynamic journey , 2016, Cortex.

[21]  R. Jenkins,et al.  Are you looking at me? Neural correlates of gaze adaptation , 2007, Neuroreport.

[22]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Neural Representation of Task Difficulty and Decision Making during Perceptual Categorization: A Timing Diagram , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Modulation of event‐related potentials by prototypical and atypical faces , 2000, Neuroreport.

[24]  Claudia Schulz,et al.  Faces forming traces: Neurophysiological correlates of learning naturally distinctive and caricatured faces , 2012, NeuroImage.

[25]  G. Rhodes,et al.  The timecourse of higher-level face aftereffects , 2007, Vision Research.

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

[27]  J. Barton,et al.  Erasing the face after-effect , 2014, Brain Research.

[28]  G. Rhodes,et al.  How is facial expression coded? , 2015, Journal of vision.

[29]  P. Hancock,et al.  Similar neural adaptation mechanisms underlying face gender and tilt aftereffects , 2011, Vision Research.

[30]  G. Kovács,et al.  Young without plastic surgery: Perceptual adaptation to the age of female and male faces , 2010, Vision Research.

[31]  C. Clifford,et al.  Visual representation of eye gaze is coded by a nonopponent multichannel system. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  Expertise and own-race bias in face processing: an event-related potential study , 2008, Neuroreport.

[33]  M. Webster,et al.  Visual adaptation and face perception , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[35]  Stefan R Schweinberger,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of eye gaze adaptation. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[36]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex , 2003, NeuroImage.

[37]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  Effects of anticaricaturing vs. caricaturing and their neural correlates elucidate a role of shape for face learning , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  Katherine R. Storrs Are high-level aftereffects perceptual? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[39]  David M. Grayson,et al.  You looking at me? , 1999, Nature.

[40]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Fitting the Mind to the World: Adaptation and after-effects in high-level vision , 2005 .

[41]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  Aftereffects for face attributes with different natural variability: adapter position effects and neural models. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  Gyula Kovács,et al.  Neural Correlates of Generic versus Gender-specific Face Adaptation , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[43]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  The age of the beholder: ERP evidence of an own-age bias in face memory , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[44]  Nine-year-old children use norm-based coding to visually represent facial expression. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Talia L. Retter,et al.  Visual adaptation provides objective electrophysiological evidence of facial identity discrimination , 2016, Cortex.

[46]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Face identity aftereffects increase monotonically with adaptor extremity over, but not beyond, the range of natural faces , 2014, Vision Research.

[47]  Gyula Kovács,et al.  Adaptation Duration Dissociates Category-, Image-, and Person-Specific Processes on Face-Evoked Event-Related Potentials , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[48]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  Face processing stages: Impact of difficulty and the separation of effects , 2006, Brain Research.

[49]  Andrew L. Skinner,et al.  Anti-Expression Aftereffects Reveal Prototype-Referenced Coding of Facial Expressions , 2010, Psychological science.

[50]  Stefan R Schweinberger,et al.  What's special about personally familiar faces? A multimodal approach. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[51]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  The temporal decay of eye gaze adaptation effects. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[52]  Stefan R Schweinberger,et al.  The neural signature of the own-race bias: evidence from event-related potentials. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[53]  Giovanni Maria Carlomagno,et al.  Heat flux sensors and infrared thermography , 2007, J. Vis..

[54]  C. Mondloch,et al.  The timing of individual face recognition in the brain , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[55]  T. Palmeri,et al.  Not just the norm: Exemplar-based models also predict face aftereffects , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[56]  Masaaki Kawahashi,et al.  Renovation of Journal of Visualization , 2010, J. Vis..

[57]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Adaptive norm-based coding of facial identity , 2006, Vision Research.

[58]  M. Webster Adaptation and visual coding. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[59]  L. Deouell,et al.  Neural adaptation is related to face repetition irrespective of identity: a reappraisal of the N170 effect , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[60]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  Not all face aftereffects are equal , 2012, Vision Research.