A feature-inversion effect: can an isolated feature show behavior like the face-inversion effect?

Rakover, Sam S.

doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0264-4

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This proposal, which may be viewed as the "extended configural-processing" hypothesis, can handle Rakover and Teucher's (1997) findings by pointing out that for face processing, the spatial relations within a facial feature are no less important than those between features. Rakover (2012) found empirical support for the extended configural-processing hypothesis in a same/different experimental procedure: Recognition of isolated eyes was better when they were upright rather than inverted; that is, recognition of isolated eyes showed behavior similar to the face (UI) effect. Furthermore, perception and recognition of eyes tilted downward and upward (a within configural information change) were better when the eyes were upright rather than inverted.…”

Section: A Necessary and A Sufficient Conditionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…In these cases, the visual system processes seem to take over, the feature becomes salient-an attention attractor-and the effect of inversion disappears. Similarly, Rakover (2012) found that perception and recognition of the eyes (within the whole face or in isolation) in upright and inverted positions were the same when the irises were blackened. In the same vein, focusing attention on a local area in the face reduces the effect of inversion (e.g., Barton et al, 2001;Tanaka & Gordon, 2011).…”

Section: Fsi Model and Facial Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The face-inversion effect (FIE) can be viewed as being based on two kinds of findings. According to the face (UI) effect, perception and recognition are better for faces presented upright (U) than for faces presented inverted (I). According to the face/object(UI) effect, inversion impairs the processing of faces more than the processing of nonfacial objects (e.g., buildings or cars). Part I of this article focuses on the face(UI) effect and the configural-processing hypothesis, which is considered the most popular explanatory hypothesis of the FIE. In this hypothesis, it is proposed that inversion impairs the processing of configural information (the spatial relations between features) but hardly (if at all) impairs the processing of featural information (e.g., eyes, nose, and mouth). Part II of the article starts from the conclusion reached in part I, that the configural-processing hypothesis has not succeeded in explaining a substantial number of the findings and in resolving certain theoretical problems. The part then goes on to outline a new alternative model, the face-scheme incompatibility (FSI) model, which contends with these theoretical problems, accounts for the configural-processing hypothesis, succeeds in explaining a considerable portion of the empirical findings related to the face(UI) effect, and proposes a relatively new research program on the concept of the face scheme. The basic assumption of the FSI model is that schemes and prototypes are involved in processing a visual stimulus of a face and in transforming it to a "meaning-bearing" face, and that different schemes are involved if the face is presented upright or inverted.

show abstract

Section: A Necessary and A Sufficient Conditionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Fsi Model and Facial Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Rakover

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The absence of a LVF/RH advantage with inverted faces we reported here is consistent with previous evidence indicating that inversion is specifically detrimental for configural modes of face processing (cf. Leder & Carbon, 2006;McKone & Yovel, 2009;Rakover, 2012). In fact, prior findings collected with cataract reversal patients using the same face set as that used here (Le Grand et al, 2001;Robbins et al, 2010) showed that inversion particularly disrupts a configural mode of processing that seems to be specific for human faces presented in their standard upright orientation; a process that is not employed for other faces such as animals (e.g., monkeys) or objects (e.g., houses).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Accordingly, several previous studies employing a sequential same-different face-matching task investigating featural versus spacing processing have selectively reported effects of experimental manipulations on accuracy measures (e.g., Keyes, 2012;Lobmaier et al, 2010;Pitcher et al, 2007;Rakover, 2012;Yovel & Kanwisher, 2008), suggesting that reaction times may be a less sensitive measure than accuracy measures in these kinds of tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric asymmetry in discriminating faces differing for featural or configural (second-order relations) aspects

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human capacity to discriminate among different faces relies on distinct parallel subprocesses, based either on the analysis of configural aspects or on the sequential analysis of the single elements of a face. A particular type of configural processing consists of considering whether two faces differ in terms of internal spacing among their features, referred to as second-order relations processing. Findings from electrophysiological, neuroimaging, and lesion studies suggest that, overall, configural processes rely more on the right hemisphere, whereas analysis of single features would involve more the left. However, results are not always consistent, and behavioral evidence for a right-hemisphere specialization in second-order relations processing is lacking. Here, we used divided visual field presentation to investigate the possible different contributions of the two hemispheres to face discrimination based on relational versus featural processing.Our data indicate a right-hemispheric specialization in relational processing of upright (but not inverted) faces. Furthermore, we provide evidence regarding the involvement of both the right and left hemispheres in the processing of faces differing for inner features, suggesting that both analytical and configural modes of processing are at play.

show abstract

“…First, the task used in the current study was a passive viewing of upright and inverted faces and houses. Although previous behavioral studies showed that the inverted presentation of faces impairs configural processing of faces [Maurer et al, ], it is pointed out that the inversion also has an influence on the processing of facial parts [Doi et al, ; Rakover, ]. To determine functional roles of the IOG and the FG during an early stage of face processing, it would be favorable to manipulate facial parts and configuration separately [Liu et al, ] or to demand the processing of each aspect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time course of gamma‐band oscillation associated with face processing in the inferior occipital gyrus and fusiform gyrus: A combined fMRI and MEG study

Uono

Sato

Kochiyama³

et al. 2016

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate continues over whether the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG) or the fusiform gyrus (FG) represents the first stage of face processing and what role these brain regions play. We investigated this issue by combining functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) in normal adults. Participants passively observed upright and inverted faces and houses. First, we identified the IOG and FG as face-specific regions using fMRI. We applied beamforming source reconstruction and time-frequency analysis to MEG source signals to reveal the time course of gamma-band activations in these regions. The results revealed that the right IOG showed higher gamma-band activation in response to upright faces than to upright houses at 100 ms from the stimulus onset. Subsequently, the right FG showed greater gamma-band response to upright faces versus upright houses at around 170 ms. The gamma-band activation in the right IOG and right FG was larger in response to inverted faces than to upright faces at the later time window. These results suggest that (1) the gamma-band activities occurs rapidly first in the IOG and next in the FG and (2) the gamma-band activity in the right IOG at later time stages is involved in configuration processing for faces. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2067-2079, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

A feature-inversion effect: can an isolated feature show behavior like the face-inversion effect?

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Explaining the face-inversion effect: the face–scheme incompatibility (FSI) model

Hemispheric asymmetry in discriminating faces differing for featural or configural (second-order relations) aspects

Time course of gamma‐band oscillation associated with face processing in the inferior occipital gyrus and fusiform gyrus: A combined fMRI and MEG study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About