Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise.

Abstract

Recognition memory for faces is hampered much more by inverted presentation than is memory for any other material so far examined. The present study demonstrates that faces are not unique with regard to this vulnerability to inversion. The experiments also attempt to isolate the source of the inversion effect. In one experiment, use of stimuli (landscapes) in which spatial relations among elements are potentially important distinguishing features is shown not to guarantee a large inversion effect. Two additional experiments show that for dog experts sufficiently knowledgeable to individuate dogs of the same breed, memory for photographs of dogs of that breed is as disrupted by inversion as is face recognition. A final experiment indicates that the effect of orientation on memory for faces does not depend on inability to identify single features of these stimuli upside down. These experiments are consistent with the view that experts represent items in memory in terms of distinguishing features of a different kind than do novices. Speculations as to the type of feature used and neuropsychological and developmental implications of this accomplishment are offered.

Perceptual learning and inversion effects: Recognition of prototype-defined familiar checkerboards.

“…The results from Robbins and McKone's (2007) Experiment 1 showed that the inversion effect for dog experts with dog images was smaller than that for faces, in contradiction to what Diamond and Carey (1986) had previously found. Thus, the authors suggested that Diamond and Carey's (1986) results might have been influenced by the pre-experimental familiarity that some of the experts might had for some of the dogs in their upright orientation. This initial familiarity might have assisted experts with these stimuli in comparison to inverted dog images and to unfamiliar faces.…”

“…In an evaluation of the expertise account proposed by Diamond and Carey (1986), Robbins and McKone (2007) attempted to replicate the results obtained by Diamond and Carey (1986, Experiment 3) using dog experts. Thus the experimental procedure used was very similar to that used before, however, the authors ensured that the experts could not name or access any other specific information for any of the dog images contained in the stimulus set.…”

“…Thus the experimental procedure used was very similar to that used before, however, the authors ensured that the experts could not name or access any other specific information for any of the dog images contained in the stimulus set. This was because in Diamond and Carey's (1986) study the dog images were taken from the archives of the American Kennel Club, and the experts were American Kennel Club judges. Thus, it could have been that some of the experts had seen some of those dogs before they entered the experiment.…”

Egocentric and object-based transformations in the laterality judgement of human and animal faces and of non-corporeal objects

“…Interestingly it is also possible to "spread" the face inversion effect also to other nonface stimuli [10,14]. Indeed non-face objects as well as bodies [35] can be processed as faces [14,42]. It is worth noting that not only the animal face but also the front of the car used in the present study bears a structural resemblance with face stimuli.…”

“…In particular, the face inversion effect indicates disproportionate disruption of faces recognition following their upside-down inversion, with respect to the recognition of other objects [4]. Interestingly it is also possible to "spread" the face inversion effect also to other nonface stimuli [10,14]. Indeed non-face objects as well as bodies [35] can be processed as faces [14,42].…”