Orientation-sensitivity of face identity aftereffects

Abstract

Our ability to recognize faces despite their similarity as visual patterns depends on high-level face-coding mechanisms that are strongly tuned to upright faces. If face aftereffects reflect adaptation of these mechanisms, as widely assumed, then they should be sensitive to face orientation. Previous studies have not supported this hypothesis, but have generally used a figural aftereffect paradigm, which may not optimally engage expert face-coding mechanisms. Here, we used an identity aftereffect paradigm, which requires identification of target faces, to provide a stronger test of the hypothesis. We measured identity aftereffects for upright and inverted faces, with and without eliminating low-level retinotopic adaptation. Baseline identification performance was substantially better for upright than inverted faces, confirming that our task tapped orientation-selective face expertise. With orientation varied between participants, aftereffects were almost twice as large for upright as inverted faces, on three different aftereffect measures (change in threshold, change in overall proportion correct, change in perceived identity of the average face). With orientation varied within participants, the results were less clear. We suggest that adaptation of expert face-coding mechanisms can contribute to face identity aftereffects, although the effect may not be very robust.

Saccadic remapping of object-selective information

“…If this had been the case, we would have expected to find a significant aftereffect in Experiment 1c similar to what we found in Experiment 1a. We find a significantly reduced but significant aftereffect with inverted stimuli as expected from the preexisting literature (McKelvie, 1995; Rhodes, Evangelista, & Jeffery, 2009; Rutherford, Chattha, & Krysko, 2008; Yin, 1969). Experiment 1d, our covert attention experiment, showed that a saccade is necessary and covert attention alone is insufficient to generate the negative face aftereffect in Experiment 1a.…”

How distinct is the coding of face identity and expression? Evidence for some common dimensions in face space

“…Second, adaptation of the common identity/expression adaptation factor was also (marginally) linked to face-selective identity recognition ability. Third, face identity aftereffects like those measured here are diminished for inverted faces, which do not tap high-level face coding mechanisms very effectively (Rhodes, Evangelista, & Jeffery, 2009). Finally, we minimized the contribution of low-level retinotopic adaptation by using a size change between adapt and test faces and allowed free scanning of the adapting stimuli.…”

“…The Occipital Face Area (OFA) computes an early visual representation of face parts that may be common to both identity and expression (Fairhall & Ishai, 2007;Haxby et al, 2000;Pitcher, Walsh, & Duchaine, 2011;Pitcher, Walsh, Yovel, & Duchaine, 2007). However, it seems unlikely that the common dimensions are coded by the OFA because identity aftereffects are larger for upright than inverted faces (Rhodes et al, 2009) whereas the OFA is insensitive to orientation (Yovel & Kanwisher, 2005). Instead the FFA is sensitive to orientation (Yovel & Kanwisher, 2005) and could potentially code the common dimensions.…”

Face recognition impairments despite normal holistic processing and face space coding: Evidence from a case of developmental prosopagnosia

“…Task duration was 30 min. Size of the aftereffect was calculated as difference between the two adapting conditions (adapt anti-Danadapt anti-Jim) in overall proportion of "Team Dan" responses; this measure has been used previously when, as here, there are relatively few identity-strength values, and so it is difficult to fit psychometric curves and determine the face perceived as most normal in individual subject data (Jiang, Blanz, & O'Toole, 2007;Nishimura, Maurer, Jeffery, Pellicano, & Rhodes, 2008;Rhodes, Evangelista, & Jeffery, 2009). …”