Development of Face Processing: The Effect of Face Inversion

Schwarzer, Gudrun

doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00152

Cited by 121 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings stand in contrast to several reports suggesting that adult-like configural face processing does not occur until early to late childhood (for example, Diamond 1977, 1994;Schwarzer 2000;Brace et al 2001). Furthermore, the results are consistent with the model of perceptual narrowing (Nelson 2001(Nelson , 2003 in face processing.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We sought to elucidate the behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of face processing, in adults and infants, by manipulating either the featural or configural information within the face. Two different experiments are reported. In these experiments, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from the scalp while adult, 8-month-old, and 4-month-old participants completed configural-change and featural-change face tasks. The infants also completed a behavioral visual paired-comparison task with featural and configural face changes. ERP results reveal hemispheric differences in processing featural but not configural changes for the N170 in adults. Furthermore, featural and configural changes are processed differently within the right and left hemispheres. The right hemisphere N170 is significantly greater for configural compared to featural changes. The left hemisphere N170, however, exhibits the opposite effect. Infant data suggest that similar to adults, 8-month-old, but not 4-month-old participants, exhibit similar hemispheric differences between featural and configural changes for the P400 component. Behavioral results suggest increased sensitivity to both featural and configural face changes in 8-month-olds compared to 4-month-olds.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The late maturation hypothesis posits that children do not remember faces as accurately as adults because face processing ability does not fully develop until at least adolescence (see Carey & Diamond, 1977;Mondloch, Le Grand, & Maurer, 2002). Evidence from the basic face processing literature suggests that children's sensitivity may be poorer because they tend to engage in more feature-based rather than configural-based processing (Mondloch, Geldart, Maurer, & Le Grand, 2003: Mondloch, et al, 2002Schwarzer, 2000). The recognition of faces using configural information may not reach adult levels until adolescence (Bruce et al, 2000;Carey, Diamond, & Woods, 1980;Mondloch, et al, 2003: Mondloch, et al, 2002.…”

Section: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Of Age-related Chmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of age-related changes in lineup performance

Humphries

Flowe

2015

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the basic face memory literature, support has been found for the late maturation hypothesis, which holds that face recognition ability is not fully developed until at least adolescence. Support for the late maturation hypothesis in the criminal lineup identification literature, however, has been equivocal, because of the analytic approach that has been used to examine age-related changes in identification performance. Recently, Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) analysis was applied for the first time in the adult eyewitness memory literature to examine whether memory sensitivity differs across different types of lineup tests (Gronlund et al. 2012;Mickes, Flowe, & Wixted, 2012). ROC analysis allows for the separation of memory sensitivity from response bias in the analysis of recognition data. Here, we make the first ROC-based comparison of adults' and children's (5-6 years and 9-10 years) memory performance on lineups by reanalysing data from Humphries, Holliday, & Flowe 3 (2012). In line with the late maturation hypothesis, memory sensitivity was significantly greater for adults compared to young children. Memory sensitivity for older children was similar to adults. The results indicate that the late maturation hypothesis can be generalized to account for age-related performance differences on an eyewitness memory task. The implications for developmental eyewitness memory research are discussed.

show abstract

“…§ Therefore, one needs a developmental perspective on the acquisition of normal face recognition, as configural perception of faces develops gradually during childhood (13,14,(49)(50)(51)(52). For example, Carey and Diamond (14) have shown that 6-year-old children were equally fast on recognizing inverted and upright faces, whereas 10-year-old children were somewhat delayed on inverted faces but still less so than adults, suggesting that they rely more on configural properties than younger children [see also Mondloch et al (51)].…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired face and body perception in developmental prosopagnosia

Righart

Gelder

2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosopagnosia is a deficit in face recognition in the presence of relatively normal object recognition. Together with older lesion studies, recent brain-imaging results provide evidence for the closely related representations of faces and objects and, more recently, for brain areas sensitive to faces and bodies. This evidence raises the issue of whether developmental prosopagnosics may also have an impairment in encoding bodies. We investigated the first stages of face, body, and object perception in four developmental prosopagnosics by comparing event-related potentials to canonically and upsidedown presented stimuli. Normal configural encoding was absent in three of four developmental prosopagnosics for faces at the P1 and for both faces and bodies at the N170 component. Our results demonstrate that prosopagnosics do not have this normal processing routine readily available for faces or bodies. A profound face recognition deficit characteristic of developmental prosopagnosia may not necessarily originate in a category-specific face recognition deficit in the initial stages of development. It may also have its roots in anomalous processing of the configuration, a visual routine that is important for other stimuli besides faces. Faces and bodies trigger configuration-based visual strategies that are crucial in initial stages of stimulus encoding but also serve to bootstrap the acquisition of more feature-based visual skills that progressively build up in the course of development.face configuration ͉ inversion effect ͉ N170

show abstract

Development of Face Processing: The Effect of Face Inversion

Cited by 121 publications

References 33 publications

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of age-related changes in lineup performance

Impaired face and body perception in developmental prosopagnosia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About