The development of face expertise: Evidence for a qualitative change in processing

Hills, Peter J.; Lewis, Michael Bevan

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.05.003

Cited by 41 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 137 publications

(126 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This ‘flipped’ ERP profile, alongside the absence of any significant face inversion effects in the 6-7 and 10-11 year olds, is therefore suggestive of a maturation of face processing networks during childhood, which might be difficult to capture with standard ERP analysis given the high variability in the locus of face-selective areas in children. Such changes are consistent with the fine tuning of face ability with experience claimed by proponents of a late maturation of face specific abilities (Carey & Diamond, 1977; Carey et al, 1980; Germine et al, 2011; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Susilo et al, 2013). In line with these results, several behavioural studies have also noted developmental changes in the face inversion effect (Carey & Diamond, 1977; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Schwarzer, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Questions regarding an early or late maturation of face-selective processing abilities have historically proven difficult to resolve, with mixed findings from the various behavioural studies to date (e.g., Carey & Diamond, 1977; Carey, Diamond, & Woods, 1980; Crookes & McKone, 2009; Germine, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2011; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Pellicano & Rhodes, 2003; Susilo, Germine, & Duchaine, 2013). The current study attempted to provide clarity on this issue by testing for the presence of distinct profiles of neural activity when children of different ages (and adults) view unfamiliar faces presented in their canonical upright orientation in contrast to inverted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This face inversion effect has been taken to reflect, in part, specialised holistic processing for upright faces (Edmonds & Lewis, 2007; Farah, Tanaka, & Drain, 1995; Freire, Lee, & Symons, 2000; Maurer, Grand, & Mondloch, 2002). Relatively attenuated or absent face inversion effects in young children appear to suggest an initially immature holistic processing of faces that is reliant on a non-expert processing strategy for faces at both orientations (Carey & Diamond, 1977; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Schwarzer, 2000)(Carey & Diamond, 1977)(Carey & Diamond, 1977)(Carey & Diamond, 1977)(Carey & Diamond, 1977)(Carey & Diamond, 1977)(Carey & Diamond, 1977). In particular, researchers have suggested that children rely to a greater extent on individual facial features than adults, who employ a more holistic processing strategy for upright faces (see Carey & Diamond, 1977; Carey et al, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Unsurprisingly, these early perceptual biases do not match the sophistication of face abilities observed later in development. Studies tracking outcomes on lab-based face processing tests in the early years of life report improvements in performance with age (e.g., Carey, Diamond, & Woods, 1980; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Laurence & Mondloch, 2016; Lawrence et al, 2008; Mondloch, Le Grand, & Maurer, 2002), peaking at around 30 years (Germine, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2011). Fierce debate continues, however, regarding the mechanism/s driving the observed change (see McKone, Crookes, Jeffery, & Dilks, 2012 for an extensive review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One hypothesis suggesting late maturation of face-selective abilities proposes that domain-specific mechanisms undergo tuning with face experience, leading to progressively more sophisticated face processing capacity with increasing age (e.g. Carey & Diamond, 1977; Germine et al, 2011; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Susilo, Germine, & Duchaine, 2013). In contrast, a hypothesis of early face-selective maturation contends that any observed changes in performance during development reflects maturation of general cognitive processes that are not face-selective (Crookes & McKone, 2009; McKone et al, 2012), e.g., improvements in children’s attention, memory and executive functioning across childhood are well-documented (Casey, Giedd, & Thomas, 2000; Zelazo & Mller, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Developmental changes in the processing of faces as revealed by EEG decoding

Mares

Ewing

Farran

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapidly and accurately processing information from faces is a critical human function that is known to improve with developmental age. Understanding the underlying drivers of this improvement remains a contentious question, with debate continuing as to the presence of early vs. late maturation of face-processing mechanisms. Recent behavioural evidence suggests an important ‘hallmark’ of expert face processing – the face inversion effect – is present in very young children, yet neural support for this remains unclear. To address this, we conducted a detailed investigation of the neural dynamics of face-selective processing in children spanning a range of ages (6 – 11 years) and adults. Uniquely, we applied multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) to the electroencephalogram signal (EEG) to test for the presence of a distinct neural profile associated with canonical upright faces when compared both to other objects (houses) and to inverted faces. Results revealed robust discrimination profiles, at the individual level, of differentiated neural activity associated with broad face categorization and further with its expert processing, as indexed by the face inversion effect, from the youngest ages tested. This result is consistent with an early functional maturation of broad face processing mechanisms. Yet, clear quantitative differences between the response profile of children and adults is suggestive of age-related refinement of this system with developing face and general expertise. Standard ERP analysis also provides some support for qualitative differences in the neural response to inverted faces in children in contrast to adults. This neural profile is in line with recent behavioural studies that have reported impressively expert early face abilities during childhood, while also providing novel evidence of the ongoing neural specialisation between child and adulthood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Developmental changes in the processing of faces as revealed by EEG decoding

Mares

Ewing

Farran

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Are people with autism prosopagnosic?

Kamensek,

Susilo,

Iarocci

et al. 2023

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Difficulties in various face processing tasks have been well documented in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Several meta‐analyses and numerous case–control studies have indicated that this population experiences a moderate degree of impairment, with a small percentage of studies failing to detect any impairment. One possible account of this mixed pattern of findings is heterogeneity in face processing abilities stemming from the presence of a subpopulation of prosopagnosic individuals with ASD alongside those with normal face processing skills. Samples randomly drawn from such a population, especially relatively smaller ones, would vary in the proportion of participants with prosopagnosia, resulting in a wide range of group‐level deficits from mild (or none) to severe across studies. We test this prosopagnosic subpopulation hypothesis by examining three groups of participants: adults with ASD, adults with developmental prosopagnosia (DP), and a comparison group. Our results show that the prosopagnosic subpopulation hypothesis does not account for the face impairments in the broader autism spectrum. ASD observers show a continuous and graded, rather than categorical, heterogeneity that span a range of face processing skills including many with mild to moderate deficits, inconsistent with a prosopagnosic subtype account. We suggest that pathogenic origins of face deficits for at least some with ASD differ from those of DP.

show abstract