Inversion and processing of component and spatial–relational information in faces.

Abstract

This study compared effects of inversion on perceptual processing of faces with distorted components (eyes and mouths) and faces distorted by altering spatial relations between components. In a rating task, participants inversion reduced the rated grotesqueness of spatially distorted faces but not that of faces with altered components. In a comparison task, pairs of faces were shown side by side; participants judged whether they were identical or different. Inversion greatly reduced the rate at which participants responded within 3 s to pairs that differed spatially, but not pairs that differed componentially. Also, latencies for detecting spatial differences were lengthened by inversion more than latencies for detecting componential differences. Results support the hypothesis that inversion impairs encoding of spatial-relational information more than, or instead of, componential information, depending on the task.

Orienting to threat: faster localization of fearful facial expressions and body postures revealed by saccadic eye movements

“…These results extend our initial findings on faster saccadic and manual localization of emotional facial expressions (Bannerman et al in press) by showing that exactly the same pattern of responses applies to fearful faces and fearful body postures, thereby suggesting that fear expressed in faces and bodies is processed in a similar fashion. To rule out the possibility that low-level image differences between fear and neutral stimuli may have been responsible for the observed effect, we inverted the stimuli, a procedure that interferes with face ( Tanaka & Farah 1993) and body (Reed et al 2003;Stekelenburg & de Gelder 2004) processing and the recognition of facial emotion (Searcy & Bartlett 1996;de Gelder et al 1997), but maintains feature differences. No significant differences between fear and neutral, in terms of reaction time or accuracy, were observed for any of the inverted stimulus conditions, suggesting that emotional valence, rather than features, is the critical factor in influencing the speed of saccadic and manual localization.…”

“…Using inversion, it is possible to distinguish meaning from features. Inversion disrupts face ( Tanaka & Farah 1993) and body ( Reed et al 2003;Stekelenburg & de Gelder 2004) processing and the recognition of facial emotion (Searcy & Bartlett 1996;de Gelder et al 1997) while maintaining feature differences. If threat-bias effects reduce with inversion, then negative valence is crucial, rather than features.…”

Face and object processing in autism spectrum disorders

“…The typical ability to discriminate and remember faces with high accuracy is acquired using specialist visual configural-processing strategies, rather than general strategies such as feature processing [Carey and Diamond, 1977;Diamond and Carey, 1986;Farah et al, 1998;Leder and Bruce, 1998;Maurer et al, 2002;Rhodes et al, 1993;Searcy and Bartlett, 1996;Sergent, 1984;Tanaka and Farah, 1993;Yovel and Kanwisher, 2004]. There is evidence to suggest that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not process faces as well as typically developing individuals [Davies et al, 1994;Hobson, 1986;Joseph and Tanaka, 2003;Klin et al, 1999;Langdell, 1978;Senju et al, 2003], but it remains unclear whether this deficit is attributable to configuralprocessing impairments.…”

“…There is still disagreement about the type of configural processing used by typically developing individuals to discriminate faces [Diamond and Carey, 1986;Farah et al, 1998;Gauthier and Tarr, 1997;Leder and Bruce, 1998;Maurer et al, 2002;Palmeri and Gauthier, 2004;Rhodes et al, 1993;Searcy and Bartlett, 1996;Yovel and Kanwisher, 2004]. Three types of configural information are considered to be important in face processing [Maurer et al, 2002]: (1) first-order information (the fixed structure of the eyes, above the nose, above the mouth); (2) holistic information (processing all componential properties without decomposition, or as a perceptual snapshot); (3) second-order information (the spatial relationship amongst the features).…”

The Effect of Rotation on Configural Encoding in a Face-Matching Task

“…There is a variety of evidence to suggest that it is information about the configuration of facial features (their relative arrangement to each other within a face) that is disrupted by inversion, and that inversion is more disruptive to the processing of configural information than to that of featural information. Searcy and Bartlett (1996) found effects of inversion on a simultaneouscomparison task with spatially distorted and featurally distorted faces. Inversion significantly hindered participants' ability to decide, within a given time frame, that a pair of spatially distorted faces were the same or different; but this effect was not found with featurally distorted pairs, and responses made within this time feature (3 s) were longer for detecting configural differences than for detecting featural changes.…”