Face inversion disproportionately disrupts sensitivity to vertical over horizontal changes in eye position.

Crookes, Kate; Hayward, William G.

doi:10.1037/a0027943

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it should be noted that only the horizontal distance between the eyes was manipulated. According to the literature, while the processing of the horizontal distances between the eyes are relatively unaffected by inversion, inversion effect was found when vertical displacement of the eyes and eyebrows were manipulated (Crookes & Hayward, 2012;Goffaux & Dakin, 2010;Goffaux & Rossion, 2007;Sekunova & Barton, 2008). Therefore, it could partly be the reason that the current study did not find an inversion effect for the configural eye condition.…”

Section: The Disproportionate Inversion Effectcontrasting

confidence: 65%

Does face inversion qualitatively change face processing: An eye movement study using a face change detection task

Tanaka

2013

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the Face Inversion Effect is important for the study of face processing. Some researchers believe that the processing of inverted faces is qualitatively different from the processing of upright faces because inversion leads to a disproportionate performance decrement on the processing of different kinds of face information. Other researchers believe that the difference is quantitative because the processing of all kinds of facial information is less efficient due to the change in orientation and thus, the performance decrement is not disproportionate. To address the Qualitative and Quantitative debate, the current study employed a response-contingent, change detection paradigm to study eye movement during the processing of upright and inverted faces. In this study, configural and featural information were parametrically and independently manipulated in the eye and mouth region of the face. The manipulations for configural information involved changing the interocular distance between the eyes or the distance between the mouth and the nose. The manipulations for featural information involved changing the size of the eyes or the size of the mouth. The main results showed that change detection was more difficult in inverted than upright faces. Specifically, performance declined when the manipulated change occurred in the mouth region, despite the greater efforts allocated to the mouth region. Moreover, compared to upright faces where fixations were concentrated on the eyes and nose regions, inversion produced a higher concentration of fixations on the nose and mouth regions. Finally, change detection performance was better when the last fixation prior to response was located on the region of change, and the relationship between last fixation location and accuracy was stronger for inverted than upright faces. These findings reinforce the connection between eye movements and face processing strategies, and suggest that face inversion produces a qualitative disruption of looking behavior in the mouth region.

show abstract

Section: The Disproportionate Inversion Effectcontrasting

confidence: 65%

Does face inversion qualitatively change face processing: An eye movement study using a face change detection task

Tanaka

2013

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these studies, inversion differentially disrupts the perception of configural information between the nose and mouth features, but leaves the perception of the horizontal spacing between the eyes relatively intact (Malcolm, Leung & Barton, 2004; Sekunova & Barton, 2008). Other studies have shown that vertical discriminations of eyes and eye brows are more impaired by inversion than horizontal eye discriminations (Goffaux & Rossion, 2004) and this impairment is resistant to attentional cueing (Crookes & Hayward, 2012;). The collective message of the developmental and adult studies is that not all configural relations in a face are treated equivalently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Over the course of development, the size of the window expands to incorporate featural and configural information in the eye and mouth locations of face (See Figure 4b). In adults, inversion causes the size of the perceptual window to shrink thereby forcing the observer to focus on the eye features at the expense of other featural and configural face information (Crookes & Hayward, 2012; Rossion, 2008; Sekunova & Barton, 2008; Tanaka, Kaiser, Pierce, & Hagen, in press; Xu & Tanaka, 2013). Similar to our findings with young children, perception of inter-ocular distance is preserved in an inverted face because eyes and their distance are treated as a single unit (Crookes & Hayward, 2012; Sekunova & Barton, 2008; Tanaka et al, in press).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of information type (features vs. configuration) and location (eyes vs. mouth) on the development of face perception

Tanaka

Quinn

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the present study was to investigate the development of face processing strategies in a perceptual discrimination task. Children ages 7 to 12 years and young adults were administered the Face Dimensions Task. In the Face Dimensions Task, participants were asked to judge whether two simultaneously presented faces were the “same” or “different”. For the “same” trials, the two faces were identical. For the “different” trials, the faces differed either in the spacing between the eyes, the spacing between the nose and the mouth, the size of the eyes or the size of the mouth. The main finding was that 7- to 10-year-old children showed no difference in their ability to discriminate differences in eye size and eye spacing but showed a poor ability to discriminate differences in nose and mouth spacing and to a lesser extent, mouth size. The developmental lag between nose-mouth discriminations and the other featural and configural discriminations was reduced in older children and eliminated by young adulthood. These results indicate that the type of the face information (i.e., configural versus featural) and its location (i.e., eye versus mouth) jointly contribute to the development of face perception abilities.

show abstract

“…This leaves us with a question of whether the effect of facial movement on face processing is purely a facilitation of part-based processing or a promotion of flexibility in face processing. One recent study has shown that facial movements affect gender judgments by producing a larger face inversion effect (Thornton et al, 2011), which reflects greater holistic processing (Yin, 1969; Gallay et al, 2006; Crookes and Hayward, 2012; Laguesse et al, 2012; Xu and Tanaka, 2013). In addition, another study reported that facial movement led to better emotional judgment than static faces, although the size of holistic face processing was comparable between the moving and static face conditions (Chiller-Glaus et al, 2011).…”

Section: Facial Movements Optimize Face Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the facilitative effects of face motion on face recognition and its development

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the past century, researchers have extensively studied human face processing and its development. These studies have advanced our understanding of not only face processing, but also visual processing in general. However, most of what we know about face processing was investigated using static face images as stimuli. Therefore, an important question arises: to what extent does our understanding of static face processing generalize to face processing in real-life contexts in which faces are mostly moving? The present article addresses this question by examining recent studies on moving face processing to uncover the influence of facial movements on face processing and its development. First, we describe evidence on the facilitative effects of facial movements on face recognition and two related theoretical hypotheses: the supplementary information hypothesis and the representation enhancement hypothesis. We then highlight several recent studies suggesting that facial movements optimize face processing by activating specific face processing strategies that accommodate to task requirements. Lastly, we review the influence of facial movements on the development of face processing in the first year of life. We focus on infants' sensitivity to facial movements and explore the facilitative effects of facial movements on infants' face recognition performance. We conclude by outlining several future directions to investigate moving face processing and emphasize the importance of including dynamic aspects of facial information to further understand face processing in real-life contexts.

show abstract

Face inversion disproportionately disrupts sensitivity to vertical over horizontal changes in eye position.

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Does face inversion qualitatively change face processing: An eye movement study using a face change detection task

Does face inversion qualitatively change face processing: An eye movement study using a face change detection task

The effects of information type (features vs. configuration) and location (eyes vs. mouth) on the development of face perception

On the facilitative effects of face motion on face recognition and its development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About