Configural processing of other-race faces is delayed but not decreased

Seeing Race: N170 Responses to Race and Their Relation to Automatic Racial Attitudes and Controlled Processing

“…N170 latencies were significantly longer for cars (M = 191, SD = 14) than to either White faces (M = 173, SD = 11) or Black faces (M = 176, SD = 11), ps < .001, closely replicating previous findings (e.g., Carmel & Bentin, 2002). Furthermore, N170 latencies were significantly longer for Black faces than White faces, t(31) = −4.21, p < .001, as in Wiese et al (2009), suggesting slower processing of Black faces relative to White faces.…”

“…Race effects on face perception have also been examined by measuring the N170 component New York University while participants viewed Black and White American faces. Interestingly, findings in this literature have been mixed with some studies observing no differences (e.g., He, Johnson, Dovidio, & McCarthy, 2009;Wiese, Stahl, & Schweinberger, 2009;Caldara, Rossion, Bovet, & Hauert, 2004;Caldara et al, 2003), some observing larger N170 effects for the ingroup (Ito & Urland, 2005), and others observing larger effects for the outgroup ( Walker, Silvert, Hewstone, & Nobre, 2008). These inconsistencies are likely because of differences in experimental tasks used in these studies vis-à-vis the expectancies and the response strategies adopted by participants during task completion.…”

Removing the own-race bias in face recognition by attentional shift using fixation crosses to diagnostic features: An eye-tracking study

“…This is not typical practice in other studies: The fixation cross is a cue to the start of the trial and in some cases disappears before the face appears (e.g., Goldinger, et al, 2009) sometimes being replaced with a context image (Shriver, Young, Hugenberg, Bernstein, & Lanter, 2008). Fixation crosses are also typically on screen for longer in face recognition experiments than in the present study (for example, 500 ms in Wiese, Stahl, &Schweinberger, 2009, and2 s in He, Ebner, &Johnson, 2011).…”

Early sensitivity for eyes within faces: A new neuronal account of holistic and featural processing

“…Similarly, this theory can explain why upright animal faces yielded slightly larger N170 than upright human faces (de Haan et al, 2002;Itier et al, 2011): the inhibition mechanism for holistic processing might not work properly because animal faces deviate slightly from the human face template. This impaired lateral inhibition mechanism for animal faces would explain the lack of N170 FIE for other-species faces (de Haan et al, 2002;Itier et al, 2011;Wiese et al, 2009) as upright and inverted animal faces would be processed similarly and mostly featurally. Finally, a default in this inhibition and/or in the eye detector mechanisms could also be at the root of face recognition impairments in some clinical and neuropsychological disorders.…”

“…In ERP studies, faces presented upside down trigger delayed but most importantly larger N170s compared to upright faces (Bentin et al, 1996;Itier & Taylor, 2002;Rossion et al, 1999), while upside down objects usually elicit only delayed responses (Itier et al, 2006;Kloth et al, 2013). Similar to objects, animal faces or impoverished human face stimuli, such as sketches or Mooney faces, also show delayed N170 with inversion but no increase in amplitude and sometimes even a slight amplitude reduction (de Haan et al, 2002;Itier et al, 2006;Itier et al, 2011;Latinus & Taylor, 2005;Sagiv & Bentin, 2001;Wiese et al, 2009). The amplitude increase with inversion, also termed the N170 "face inversion effect" (FIE), is thus believed to reflect the disruption of early holistic processing stages specific to human faces and has been used as a hallmark of face specificity.…”