Task-Specific Codes for Face Recognition: How they Shape the Neural Representation of Features for Detection and Individuation

Background The variety of ways in which faces are categorized makes face recognition challenging for both synthetic and biological vision systems. Here we focus on two face processing tasks, detection and individuation, and explore whether differences in task demands lead to differences both in the features most effective for automatic recognition and in the featural codes recruited by neural processing. Methodology/Principal Findings Our study appeals to a computational framework characterizing the features representing object categories as sets of overlapping image fragments. Within this framework, we assess the extent to which task-relevant information differs across image fragments. Based on objective differences we find among task-specific representations, we test the sensitivity of the human visual system to these different face descriptions independently of one another. Both behavior and functional magnetic resonance imaging reveal effects elicited by objective task-specific levels of information. Behaviorally, recognition performance with image fragments improves with increasing task-specific information carried by different face fragments. Neurally, this sensitivity to the two tasks manifests as differential localization of neural responses across the ventral visual pathway. Fragments diagnostic for detection evoke larger neural responses than non-diagnostic ones in the right posterior fusiform gyrus and bilaterally in the inferior occipital gyrus. In contrast, fragments diagnostic for individuation evoke larger responses than non-diagnostic ones in the anterior inferior temporal gyrus. Finally, for individuation only, pattern analysis reveals sensitivity to task-specific information within the right “fusiform face area”. Conclusions/Significance Our results demonstrate: 1) information diagnostic for face detection and individuation is roughly separable; 2) the human visual system is independently sensitive to both types of information; 3) neural responses differ according to the type of task-relevant information considered. More generally, these findings provide evidence for the computational utility and the neural validity of fragment-based visual representation and recognition.

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

[2]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Image interpretation by a single bottom-up top-down cycle , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Nouchine Hadjikhani,et al.  Neural basis of prosopagnosia: An fMRI study , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[4]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Evaluation of a Shape-Based Model of Human Face Discrimination Using fMRI and Behavioral Techniques , 2006, Neuron.

[5]  J. Hegdé,et al.  Fragment-Based Learning of Visual Object Categories , 2008, Current Biology.

[6]  H. Wilson,et al.  fMRI evidence for the neural representation of faces , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  P. Schyns,et al.  No troubles with bubbles: a reply to Murray and Gold , 2004, Vision Research.

[8]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[9]  R. Dolan,et al.  fMRI-adaptation reveals dissociable neural representations of identity and expression in face perception. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  R. Goebel,et al.  Individual faces elicit distinct response patterns in human anterior temporal cortex , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[12]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[13]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[14]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Theoretical, Statistical, and Practical Perspectives on Pattern-based Classification Approaches to the Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Data , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[16]  Rafael Malach,et al.  Face-selective Activation in a Congenital Prosopagnosic Subject , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Face recognition: A literature survey , 2003, CSUR.

[18]  A. Treves,et al.  Morphing Marilyn into Maggie dissociates physical and identity face representations in the brain , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach , 1994 .

[20]  Frédéric Gosselin,et al.  Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks , 2001, Vision Research.

[21]  S. Ullman Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Structural imaging reveals anatomical alterations in inferotemporal cortex in congenital prosopagnosia. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  D. Levi,et al.  Receptive versus perceptive fields from the reverse-correlation viewpoint , 2006, Vision Research.

[24]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Reduced structural connectivity in ventral visual cortex in congenital prosopagnosia , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  Rafael Malach,et al.  Detailed Exploration of Face-related Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: 2. Functional Neuroimaging Findings , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Holistic Processing Develops Because it is Good , 2005 .

[27]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  D. J. Felleman,et al.  Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. , 1991, Cerebral cortex.

[29]  Adrian Nestor,et al.  The segmental structure of faces and its use in gender recognition. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[30]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[31]  M. Torrens Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain—3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging, J. Talairach, P. Tournoux. Georg Thieme Verlag, New York (1988), 122 pp., 130 figs. DM 268 , 1990 .

[32]  M. Turk,et al.  Eigenfaces for Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  Richard F Murray,et al.  Optimal methods for calculating classification images: weighted sums. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[34]  Pawan Sinha,et al.  Region-based representations for face recognition , 2006, TAP.

[35]  Thomas Serre,et al.  A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  G. V. Van Hoesen,et al.  Prosopagnosia , 1982, Neurology.

[37]  J. Keenan,et al.  Lesions of the fusiform face area impair perception of facial configuration in prosopagnosia , 2002, Neurology.

[38]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  Reduction in White Matter Connectivity, Revealed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging, May Account for Age-related Changes in Face Perception , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[40]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Classification images: a tool to analyze visual strategies. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[41]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Class Information Predicts Activation by Object Fragments in Human Object Areas , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[43]  T. Poggio,et al.  Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[44]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Bayesian face recognition , 2000, Pattern Recognit..

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

[46]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Mutual information of image fragments predicts categorization in humans: Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence , 2007, Vision Research.

[47]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Stages of processing in face perception: an MEG study , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[49]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Improved Assessment of Significant Activation in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI): Use of a Cluster‐Size Threshold , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[50]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[51]  Gilles Pourtois,et al.  Portraits or People? Distinct Representations of Face Identity in the Human Visual Cortex , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[52]  M. Tarr,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area is Part of a Network that Processes Faces at the Individual Level , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.