Adults’ Markers of Face Processing Are Present at Age 6 and Are Interconnected Along Development

Abstract

Recent studies on the development of face processing argue for a late, quantitative, domain-specific development of face processing, and face memory in particular. Most previous findings were based on separately tracking the developmental course of face perception skills, comparing performance across different age groups. Here, we adopted a different approach studying the mechanisms underlying the development of face processing by focusing on how different face skills are interrelated over the years (age 6 to adulthood). Specifically, we examined correlations within and between different categories of tasks: face domain-specific skills involving face recognition based on long-term representations (famous face), and short-term memory retention (Cambridge Face Memory Test), perceptual face-specific marker (inversion effect), global effects in scene perception (global-local task), and the perception of facial expressions. Factor analysis revealed that face identity skills have a similar pattern of interrelations throughout development, identifying two factors: a face domain-specific factor comprising adultlike markers of face processing and a general factor incorporating related, but nonspecific perceptual skills. Domain-specific age-related changes in face recognition entailing short- and long-term retention of face representations were observed, along with mature perceptual face-specific markers and more general perceptual effects predicting face perception skills already at age 6. The results suggest that the domain-specific changes in face processing are unlikely to result from developmental changes in perceptual skills driving face recognition. Instead, development may either involve improvement in the ability to retain face representations in memory or changes in the interactions between the perceptual representations of faces and their representations in long-term memory.

Understanding human individuation of unfamiliar faces with oddball fast periodic visual stimulation and electroencephalography

“…In these conditions, compared to other species, neurotypical human adults truly excel at individuating faces of conspecifics (Rossion, 2018a). Importantly, this ability is “learned naturally”; young children's face individuation abilities appear limited (at least as measured in behavioral tasks), but they improve spontaneously during development, in the absence of formal training (e.g., Carey, 1992; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Mardo, Avidan, & Hadad, 2018; Mondloch, Maurer, & Ahola, 2006). Human FI is also fast (e.g., within 1–2 fixations, Hsiao & Cottrell, 2008; emerging around 160 ms after stimulus onset, Rossion & Jacques, 2011) and automatic (i.e., occurring without the intention to do so and without the ability to be suppressed; Palermo & Rhodes, 2007; Yan, Young, & Andrews, 2017).…”

“…This is an example of a clear contradiction that is not addressed in the field of human face recognition. Moreover, while behavioral studies point to a long developmental trajectory of FI (Carey, 1992; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Mardo et al., 2018; Mondloch et al., 2006), it is still completely open to debate whether this development is due to general factors or specific to FI, and whether it essentially depends on genetic factors or experience (Crookes & McKone, 2009; Mardo et al., 2018; McKone, Crookes, Jeffery, & Dilks, 2012; Mondloch et al., 2006).…”

“…ERP studies in infants also emphasize their early abilities at FI (e.g., Adibpour, Dubois, & Dehaene‐Lambertz, 2018; Courchesne, Ganz, & Norcia, 1981; de Haan, Pascalis, & Johnson, 2002; Peykarjou, Pauen, & Hoehl, 2014; Peykarjou, Pauen, & Hoehl, 2015; Righi, Westerlund, Congdon, Troller‐Renfree, & Nelson, 2014; Scott et al., 2006). On the other hand, studies performed in young children, starting from 3 to 5 years of age, instead emphasize their low performance at behavioral FI tasks, with a progressive improvement noted until adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Carey, 1992; de Heering, Rossion, & Maurer, 2012; Hills & Lewis, 2018; Mardo et al., 2018; Mondloch et al., 2006; Sangrigoli & De Schonen, 2004). This discrepancy is also found at the qualitative level: While effects of stimulus inversion on FI have been reported in newborns (Turati, Macchi Cassia, Simion, & Leo, 2006) and 3‐ to 4‐month‐old infants (Turati, Sangrigoli, Ruel, & de Schonen, 2004), this effect is absent or becomes less consistent in children of a few years of age (Carey, 1981; Crookes & McKone, 2009; de Heering et al., 2012; Sangrigoli & de Schonen, 2004).…”

Face race and sex impact visual fixation strategies for upright and inverted faces in 3‐ to 6‐year‐old children

“…One way to examine the development and interaction of multiple face processing biases is to use a task that has been widely used as an index of expert processing in adults. The upright versus inverted faces task measures aspects of holistic and expert processing as shown by impaired processing of inverted faces relative to upright faces while controlling for low‐level perceptual features (Farah et al., 1995; Freire et al., 2000; Mardo et al., 2018). This marker of enhanced face processing develops across the first several years of life (e.g., de Haan et al., 2003; Kato & Konishi, 2013; Sangrigoli & de Schonen, 2004; Schwarzer, 2000; Turati et al., 2004; Valentine, 1988; Xu & Tanaka, 2013; Yin, 1969) and is impacted by experience (for review, see Cashon & Holt, 2015).…”