Face processing is enhanced in the left and upper visual hemi-fields

Abstract

We tested whether two known hemi-field asymmetries would affect visual search with face stimuli. Holistic processing of spatial configurations is better in the left hemi-field, reflecting a right hemisphere specialization, and object recognition is better in the upper visual field, reflecting stronger projections into the ventral stream. Faces tap into holistic processing and object recognition at the same time, which predicts better performance in the left and upper hemifield, respectively. In the first experiment, participants had to detect a face with a gaze direction different from the remaining faces. Participants were faster to respond when targets were presented in the left and upper hemi-field. The same pattern of results was observed when only the eye region was presented. In the second experiment, we turned the faces upside-down, which eliminated the typical spatial configuration of faces. The left hemi-field advantage disappeared, showing that it is related to holistic processing of faces, whereas the upper hemifield advantage related to object recognition persisted. Finally, we made the search task easier by asking observers to search for a face with open among closed eyes or vice versa. The easy search task eliminated the need for complex object recognition and, accordingly, the advantage of the upper visual field disappeared. Similarly, the left hemi-field advantage was attenuated. In sum, our findings show that both horizontal and vertical asymmetries affect the search for faces and can be selectively suppressed by changing characteristics of the stimuli.

Reduced left visual field bias for faces in adolescents with social anxiety disorder

“…Results from the dimensional analysis suggest that a reduced LVF bias may be best explained by autistic traits rather than by the level of social anxiety. This result adds to a small number of studies suggesting that autistic traits and social anxiety may have different relations to social attention processes (Capriola-Hall et al, 2018;Kleberg et al, 2017). As noted in the introduction, social anxiety and autism are overlapping symptom dimensions, and a better understanding of their respective relation to atypical social attention may enhance our understanding of both conditions.…”

“…Both autism and SAD are linked to atypical face perception (Chita-Tegmark, 2016; Kleberg et al, 2019). A small number of studies have suggested that the two symptom dimensions may map onto different aspects of face perception (Capriola-Hall et al, 2018;Kleberg et al, 2017) but again, no studies exist in relation to the LVF bias.…”

The impact on emotion classification performance and gaze behavior of foveal versus extrafoveal processing of facial features.

“…Even though the mouth distinguishes between fearful and surprised expressions, enforcing fixation at the brow and thus putting the mouth on the lower vertical meridian did not lead to better emotion classification performance relative to fixation of an eye or cheek (see Figure 5). More generally, a lower visual field advantage for processing task-relevant spatial frequencies is in tension with evidence showing that, for some tasks, including a variety of face perception tasks, there is an upper visual field advantage (e.g., Carlei, Framorando, Burra, & Kerzel, 2017;Hagenbeek & Van Strien, 2002;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014a;Quek & Finkbeiner, 2014b, 2016, which, for faces and some objects, might be related to their typical visual-field positioning in everyday environments (Kaiser & Cichy, 2018;Kaiser, Quek, Cichy, & Peelen, 2019). Indeed, even isolated face parts (eyes, mouth) are better recognized and more strongly represented in right inferior occipital gyrus when they were presented at typical, rather than reversed, visual field locations (de Haas et al, 2016).…”

Asymmetries During Multiple Face Encoding: Increased Dwell Time and Number of Fixations in the Upper Visual Hemifield

“…Recognition biases have also been associated with the location of faces in the visual field (Carlei & Kerzel, 2015). Furthermore, using a visual search paradigm to investigate gaze processing, Carlei, Framorando, Burra, and Kerzel (2017) reported upper and left visual field asymmetries (VFAs) that could be enhanced or suppressed by varying specific characteristics of the stimuli presented. This is not surprising since there are important and well-established variations in receptive field size across the retina, cortical magnification factors, and visual acuity, to cite just a few variables (Silva et al., 2018).…”