Semantic Learning Modifies Perceptual Face Processing

Face processing changes when a face is learned with personally relevant information. In a five-day learning paradigm, faces were presented with rich semantic stories that conveyed personal information about the faces. Event-related potentials were recorded before and after learning during a passive viewing task. When faces were novel, we observed the expected N170 repetition effect—a reduction in amplitude following face repetition. However, when faces were learned with personal information, the N170 repetition effect was eliminated, suggesting that semantic information modulates the N170 repetition effect. To control for the possibility that a simple perceptual effect contributed to the change in the N170 repetition effect, another experiment was conducted using stories that were not related to the person (i.e., stories about rocks and volcanoes). Although viewers were exposed to the faces an equal amount of time, the typical N170 repetition effect was observed, indicating that personal semantic information associated with a face, and not simply perceptual exposure, produced the observed reduction in the N170 repetition effect. These results are the first to reveal a critical perceptual change in face processing as a result of learning person-related information. The results have important implications for researchers studying face processing, as well as learning and memory in general, as they demonstrate that perceptual information alone is not enough to establish familiarity akin to real-world person learning.

[1]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  Holistic Processing of Faces: Learning Effects with Mooney Faces , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Roxane J. Itier,et al.  Species sensitivity of early face and eye processing , 2011, NeuroImage.

[3]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Brain events related to normal and moderately scrambled faces. , 1996, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  Effects of repetition learning on upright, inverted and contrast-reversed face processing using ERPs , 2004, NeuroImage.

[5]  C. Nelson,et al.  Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation , 2006, Perception.

[6]  Neural temporal dynamics of contingency judgement , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  M. Eimer Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[9]  Mohamed Rebaï,et al.  The effects of inversion and eye displacements of familiar and unknown faces on early and late-stage ERPs. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[10]  R A Johnston,et al.  Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. , 1990, British journal of psychology.

[11]  Stefan R. Schweinberger,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetries in image-specific and abstractive priming of famous faces: Evidence from reaction times and event-related brain potentials , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Florence Thibaut,et al.  ERPs ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILIARITY AND DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY DURING FACE RECOGNITION , 2002, The International journal of neuroscience.

[13]  J. Shedden,et al.  Progressive N170 habituation to unattended repeated faces , 2006, Vision Research.

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

[15]  M. Eimer ATTENTIONAL MODULATIONS OF EVENT-RELATED BRAIN POTENTIALS SENSITIVE TO FACES , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

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

[17]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face Recognition in Poor-Quality Video: Evidence From Security Surveillance , 1999 .

[18]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Comparing neural correlates of configural processing in faces and objects: An ERP study of the Thatcher illusion , 2006, NeuroImage.

[19]  Peter J. B. Hancock,et al.  From Pixels to People: A Model of Familiar Face Recognition , 1999 .

[20]  D. Maurer,et al.  Effects of the Height of the Internal Features of Faces on Adults' Aesthetic Ratings and 5-Month-Olds' Looking Times , 1999, Perception.

[21]  J. Shedden,et al.  Automatic face identity encoding at the N170 , 2006, Vision Research.

[22]  Roxane J. Itier,et al.  Face, eye and object early processing: What is the face specificity? , 2006, NeuroImage.

[23]  N. J. Cohen,et al.  Eye-movement-based memory effect: a reprocessing effect in face perception. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Familiarity enhances invariance of face representations in human ventral visual cortex: fMRI evidence , 2005, NeuroImage.

[25]  V. Bruce Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[26]  M. Crommelinck,et al.  Is the N170 for faces cognitively penetrable? Evidence from repetition priming of Mooney faces of familiar and unfamiliar persons. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[27]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  The Thatcher illusion seen by the brain: an event-related brain potentials study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[28]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[29]  B. Rossion,et al.  Right N170 modulation in a face discrimination task: an account for categorical perception of familiar faces. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[30]  Lynn C. Robertson,et al.  Processing the Trees and the Forest during Initial Stages of Face Perception: Electrophysiological Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  G. Tiberghien,et al.  An event-related potential study of contextual modifications in a face recognition task , 2001, Neuroreport.

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

[33]  A. Burton,et al.  Event-related brain potential evidence for a response of inferior temporal cortex to familiar face repetitions. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  Inversion and Contrast Polarity Reversal Affect both Encoding and Recognition Processes of Unfamiliar Faces: A Repetition Study Using ERPs , 2002, NeuroImage.

[35]  B. Renault,et al.  Face and shape repetition effects in humans: a spatio‐temporal ERP study , 1997, Neuroreport.

[36]  R L Klatzky,et al.  Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Axel Mecklinger,et al.  Priming Visual Face-Processing Mechanisms: Electrophysiological Evidence , 2002, Psychological science.

[38]  D. Shore,et al.  More efficient scanning for familiar faces. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[39]  H. Ellis,et al.  Identification of Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces from Internal and External Features: Some Implications for Theories of Face Recognition , 1979, Perception.

[40]  P. Schyns,et al.  A principled method for determining the functionality of brain responses , 2003, Neuroreport.

[41]  A. Burton,et al.  Human brain potential correlates of repetition priming in face and name recognition , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[42]  R. Henson,et al.  Electrophysiological and haemodynamic correlates of face perception, recognition and priming. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[43]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Event-Related Potential Correlates of Long-Term Memory for Briefly Presented Faces , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[44]  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.