Inversion Effects in Face-selective Cortex with Combinations of Face Parts

Abstract

The face inversion effect has been used as a basis for claims about the specialization of face-related perceptual and neural processes. One of these claims is that the fusiform face area (FFA) is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. However, the studies on which these claims were based almost exclusively used stimulus manipulations of whole faces. Here, we tested inversion effects using single, discrete features and combinations of multiple discrete features, in addition to whole faces, using both behavioral and fMRI measurements. In agreement with previous studies, we found behavioral inversion effects with whole faces and no inversion effects with a single eye stimulus or the two eyes in combination. However, we also found behavioral inversion effects with feature combination stimuli that included features in the top and bottom halves (eyes-mouth and eyes-nose-mouth). Activation in the FFA showed an inversion effect for the whole-face stimulus only, which did not match the behavioral pattern. Instead, a pattern of activation consistent with the behavior was found in the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, which is a component of the extended face-preferring network. The results appear inconsistent with claims that the FFA is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. They are more consistent with claims that the FFA shows a stimulus preference for whole upright faces.

Repetition probability effects for inverted faces

“…The fact, however, that the magnitude of RS was similar for UPR and INV faces in the current experiment argues against the FFA being sensitive to picture-plain inversion. Our results rather support those of a recent study (James et al, 2013) that showed, using multiple combinations of features with and without the context of a whole face, that the FFA is unlikely to be the site of the face specific processes that are responsible for producing the FIE. On the other hand, other studies found larger fMRIa for UPR when compared to INV faces (Mazard et al, 2006;Schiltz and Rossion, 2006) in the FFA.…”

Processing of configural and componential information in face-selective cortical areas

“…These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the FFA functions as an important neural locus of configural processing (Liu et al, 2010;Schiltz & Rossion, 2006), though it is not the only area underlying this special process (Rhodes et al, 2009). The FFA has been shown to be sensitive to both first-order (Liu et al, 2010;Yovel & Kanwisher, 2005) and secondorder configural information (Rhodes et al, 2009) and holistic face template (Betts & Wilson, 2010;James et al, 2013). Our results cannot discern which aspect of configural information the FFA is sensitive to, because they were all disrupted in scrambled faces and preserved in blurred faces.…”

“…However, these studies often presented componential information in conjunction with firstorder configural information and/or holistic face template (Harris & Aguirre, 2008;Liu et al, 2010;Maurer et al, 2007). It is therefore hard to tease apart brain activations for face components and those for accompanying first-order configural information or holistic face template (Betts & Wilson, 2010;James, Arcurio, & Gold, 2013;Liu et al, 2010).…”

The effect of face inversion for neurons inside and outside fMRI-defined face-selective cortical regions

“…In general, these studies have shown a reduction of neural activity in face-selective areas (i.e., areas that respond significantly more to faces than objects) of the ventral visual pathway, particularly in the fusiform face area (FFA; e.g., Gilaie-Dotan et al 2010;Grotheer et al 2014;Haxby et al 1999;James et al 2013;Kanwisher et al 1998;Mazard et al 2006;Strother et al 2011;Yovel and Kanwisher 2005).…”