The N170 component and its links to configural face processing: A rapid neural adaptation study

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

“…Several studies using priming or habituation paradigms have shown reduced N170 amplitude (or M170 amplitude in MEG studies) in response to faces that were preceded by faces compared to non-face stimuli [74,[77][78][79][80][81] . These repetition suppression or adaptation effects are typically taken as evidence that the preceding stimulus and following stimulus activate a common neuronal representation at Inversion Enhanced amplitude and/or delayed latency [87,[99][100][101] Reduced amplitude [98] Delayed repetition effects [95] Contrast-reversal Enhanced amplitude [99] Repetition effects spread over longer time-window [95] Eye removal Similar amplitude for complete faces and faces with -eyes removed [86] No effects of inversion or contrast-reversal for faces -with eyes removed [103] Isolated eyes Similar or enhanced amplitude compared to intact faces [87] Holistic processing Shorter latency for repeated face halves in aligned faces [110] Longer latency for aligned compared to misaligned face halves [110] Less repetition suppression to aligned face stimuli for -half-identical or completely new faces compared to identical faces [111] Second-order relational processing Conflicting evidence on the effects of thatcherization on -processing of upright and inverted faces [114][115][116] Larger amplitude for configurally than featurally altered faces over the right hemisphere [117] Stimulus repetition Repetition suppression.…”

“…Reduced amplitude for repetition Repetition enhancement. Enhanced amplitude for repetition of different [74,77,80,81] or same faces [94] of same faces [88,91,92] Fig and profile-view faces has been taken as evidence that a view-invariant representation of faces is accessed in both cases [82] .…”

Is the rapid adaptation paradigm too rapid? Implications for face and object processing

“…Caharel et al, 2009Caharel et al, , 2011; another variant compares the same test stimuli preceded by different adaptors (e.g. Eimer et al, 2011;Nemrodov and Itier, 2011). Thus, the difference between experimental conditions in the first variant comes late in the trial, at the level of the test stimulus (test level manipulation or TLM), whereas it comes early in the second variant, at the level of the adaptor stimulus (adaptor level manipulation or ALM).…”

“…Unlike TLM design, in ALM the differentiation occurs early at the level of adaptors, creating the possibility that late processes triggered by the presentation of different adaptors would affect the response to test stimuli. This point is especially important in view of the short SOA used in some adaptation studies (Eimer et al, 2010(Eimer et al, , 2011Nakayama, 2007, 2008;Nemrodov and Itier, 2011;Vizioli et al, 2010). To address this concern, one needs to demonstrate that the effect obtained using the ALM is specific to the test stimulus used.…”

Predicting faces and houses: Category-specific visual action-effect prediction modulates late stages of sensory processing

“…This component is typically observed as a difference between face stimuli, and a vast array of different stimuli such as houses, hands or inverted faces (Eimer, 2000). This component, typically observed at bilateral parietal electrodes (with a polarity reversal over central electrodes), is thought to reflect some aspect of configural processing of faces, such that it is associated with the process of integrating different features of a face (Eimer, 2000;Eimer, Gosling, Nicholas, & Kiss, 2011). In addition to the N170, early visual ERP responses are also sometimes seen to differ between faces and other stimuli (Itier & Taylor, 2004) as well as between emotional and non-emotional faces (Eimer & Holmes, 2007;Kanwisher & Yovel, 2006) .…”