Asymmetries During Multiple Face Encoding: Increased Dwell Time and Number of Fixations in the Upper Visual Hemifield

Abstract

Visual field asymmetries in the encoding of groups of faces have rarely been investigated. Here, eye movements (percentage of dwell time [pDT] and number of fixations [nFix]) were recorded during the encoding of three groups of four faces tagged with cheating, cooperative, or neutral behaviours. Faces in each group were placed in the top left, top right, bottom left, or bottom right quadrants. Face recall was equally high in the three behavioural groups. Conversely, pDT and nFix were higher for faces in the upper hemifields. Most of the first saccades were made to the top left visual quadrant, which also commanded a higher pDT and nFix than the other quadrants. The findings are relevant to the understanding of visual field asymmetries in the processing of multiple faces, a common social scenario, and may be linked to reading habits in conjunction (or not) with cultural and environmental cues.

Development of upper visual field bias for faces in infants

“…The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether daily exposure to the positional relationship between face and body influenced the emergence of the upper visual field bias for faces, which has been found in adults (Carlei et al, 2017;Fecteau et al, 2000;Felisberti & Currie, 2019;Felisberti & McDermott, 2013;Liu & Ioannides, 2010;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2016), by comparing the two age groups: 5-6 months as the less exposed group, and 7-8 months as the more exposed group. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that the upper visual field bias for faces was found in 7-to 8month-old, but not in 5-to 6-month-olds.…”

“…© 2022 The Authors. Developmental Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. et al, 2000;Felisberti & Currie, 2019;Felisberti & McDermott, 2013;Liu & Ioannides, 2010;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2016). Also, a visual illusion called "fat face illusion," in which a face in lower visual field is perceived bigger than that in upper visual field, has been reported (Rawal & Tseng, 2020;Sun et al, 2012Sun et al, , 2013.…”

“…The bias of visual field in the face processing is observed not only along the horizontal meridian (right vs. left), but also along the vertical meridian (upper vs. lower). Specifically, faces presented in the upper visual field in adults receive advantages in detection and memory consolidation akin to left hemifield superiority (Carlei et al., 2017 ; Fecteau et al., 2000 ; Felisberti & Currie, 2019 ; Felisberti & McDermott, 2013 ; Liu & Ioannides, 2010 ; Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014 ; Quek & Finkbeiner, 2016 ). Also, a visual illusion called “fat face illusion,” in which a face in lower visual field is perceived bigger than that in upper visual field, has been reported (Rawal & Tseng, 2020 ; Sun et al., 2012 , 2013 ).…”

The influence of spatial location on same-different judgments of facial identity and expression.

“…Although humans discriminate between human faces better than any other type of object (Werner, Kühnel, & Markowitsch, 2013), there are a number of other examples where facial-identity judgments are not immune to low-level influences. For example, there appears to be a relationship between facial processing and the location of a stimulus in an observer’s visual field, such that there is an advantage in facial processing in the upper visual fields compared to lower visual fields (Carlei, Framorando, Burra, & Kerzel, 2017; Felisberti & Currie, 2019; Felisberti & McDermott, 2013; Hagenbeck & Van Strien, 2002), and for faces processed centrally compared to in the periphery (Levy, Hasson, Avidan, Hendler, & Malach, 2001). The perceived gender of a face can even be biased by its visual field location (Afraz, Pashkam, & Cavanagh, 2010).…”