What's lost in inverted faces?

Disproportionate inversion decrements for recognizing faces and other homogeneous stimuli are often interpreted as evidence that experts use relational features to recognize stimuli that share a configuration. However, it has never directly been shown that inversion disrupts the coding of relational features more than isolated features. Here we report three studies that compare inversion decrements for detecting changes that span the isolated-relational features continuum. Relatively large inversion decrements occurred for relational features (Thatcher illusion changes, internal feature spacing), with smaller decrements for isolated features (presence/absence of facial hair or glasses). The one discrepancy was a relatively large inversion decrement for detecting changes to the eyes and mouth, which we had classified as an isolated feature change. However, this decrement disappeared when the features were presented out of the face context (Experiments 2 and 3), suggesting that it occurs because subjects spontaneously code relations between the features and the rest of the face. Although the results support the interpretation of disproportionate inversion effects as evidence of relational coding, the difficulty of classifying changes as isolated or relational highlights an undesirable ambiguity in the isolated-relational feature distinction. We therefore consider alternative construals of the configural coding notion.

[1]  B. Tversky,et al.  Objects, parts, and categories. , 1984 .

[2]  C. C. Goren,et al.  Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. , 1975, Pediatrics.

[3]  I. Czigler Matching of facial features: Continuous processing, improper filtering, and holistic comparison , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Distinctiveness and Expertise Effects with Homogeneous Stimuli: Towards a Model of Configural Coding , 1990, Perception.

[5]  W. Banks,et al.  Figural goodness effects in perception and memory , 1979 .

[6]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  CONSPEC and CONLERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition. , 1991, Psychological review.

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

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

[9]  D. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect: Configuration enhances detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Y. Takano Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline , 1991, Cognition.

[12]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[13]  G. Davies,et al.  Face recall: an examination of some factors limiting composite production accuracy. , 1982, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  D. Homa,et al.  Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[15]  G. Tucker The Lopsided Ape: The Evolution of the Generative Mind , 1992 .

[16]  S. Kosslyn Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. , 1987, Psychological review.

[17]  J Sergent,et al.  Configural processing of faces in the left and the right cerebral hemispheres. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  M. Siegal,et al.  Where to look first for children's knowledge of false beliefs , 1991, Cognition.

[19]  A. Young,et al.  Configurational Information in Face Perception , 1987, Perception.

[20]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Features of laterally displayed faces: saliency or top-down processing? , 1987, Acta psychologica.

[22]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images , 1991 .

[23]  R. Yin,et al.  Face recognition by brain-injured patients: a dissociable ability? , 1970, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  T Valentine,et al.  The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[25]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  M. Tarr,et al.  When does Human Object Recognition use a Viewer-Centered Reference Frame? , 1990 .

[27]  T. Parks,et al.  Thatcher and the Cheshire Cat: Context and the Processing of Facial Features , 1985, Perception.

[28]  G. Rhodes Lateralized processes in face recognition. , 1985, British journal of psychology.

[29]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Biology and Cognitive Development: The Case of Face Recognition , 1993 .

[30]  I. Rock,et al.  A case of viewer-centered object perception , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  Dean G. Purcell,et al.  The face-detection effect , 1986 .

[32]  D. D. Wheeler Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

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

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

[35]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[37]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986 .

[38]  I. Rock The perception of disoriented figures. , 1974, Scientific American.

[39]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[40]  M. Corballis Recognition of disoriented shapes. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[42]  S. Carey Becoming a face expert. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[43]  Yoshio Takane,et al.  Multidimensional scaling models for reaction times and same-different judgments , 1983 .

[44]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[45]  E. Gibson Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[46]  A. Young,et al.  ARE FACES SPECIAL , 1989 .

[47]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. , 1989, British journal of psychology.

[48]  H. D. Ellis,et al.  Introduction to Aspects of Face Processing: Ten Questions in Need of Answers , 1986 .

[49]  S. Levine THE QUESTION OF FACES: SPECIAL IS IN THE BRAIN OF THE BEHOLDER , 1989 .

[50]  B. Julesz,et al.  Context Superiority in a Detection Task with Line-Element Stimuli: A Low-Level Effect , 1990, Perception.

[51]  K. Maruyama,et al.  Illusory face dislocation effect and configurational integration in the inverted face , 1985 .

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

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