Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Scott, Lisa S.; Nelson, Charles A.

doi:10.1068/p5493

Cited by 150 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…holistic processing, are reflected in neurophysiological responses to faces. As we have argued above, to date, there is only limited evidence that the N170 ERP component reflects the holistic processing of faces and only one study has pro-vided evidence that the N170 is involved in both featural and second-order relational processing of faces [117] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These repetition suppression or adaptation effects are typically taken as evidence that the preceding stimulus and following stimulus activate a common neuronal representation at Inversion Enhanced amplitude and/or delayed latency [87,[99][100][101] Reduced amplitude [98] Delayed repetition effects [95] Contrast-reversal Enhanced amplitude [99] Repetition effects spread over longer time-window [95] Eye removal Similar amplitude for complete faces and faces with -eyes removed [86] No effects of inversion or contrast-reversal for faces -with eyes removed [103] Isolated eyes Similar or enhanced amplitude compared to intact faces [87] Holistic processing Shorter latency for repeated face halves in aligned faces [110] Longer latency for aligned compared to misaligned face halves [110] Less repetition suppression to aligned face stimuli for -half-identical or completely new faces compared to identical faces [111] Second-order relational processing Conflicting evidence on the effects of thatcherization on -processing of upright and inverted faces [114][115][116] Larger amplitude for configurally than featurally altered faces over the right hemisphere [117] Stimulus repetition Repetition suppression. Reduced amplitude for repetition Repetition enhancement.…”

Section: The Neurophysiology Of Face Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…they were presented a picture of a face and were asked to press a button when they felt confident to be able to recognize it in subsequent trials [117] . Then participants changes versus second-order relational changes may be expected [117] .…”

Section: The Neurophysiology Of Face Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

Hoehl

Peykarjou

2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the present article we review behavioral and neurophysiological studies on face processing in adults and in early development. From the existing empirical and theoretical literature we derive three aspects that distinguish face processing from the processing of other visual object categories. Each of these aspects is discussed from a developmental perspective. First, faces are recognized and represented at the individual level rather than at the basic level. Second, humans typically acquire extensive expertise in individuating faces from early on in development. And third, more than other objects, faces are processed holistically. There is a quantitative difference in the amount of visual experience for faces and other object categories in that the amount of expertise typically acquired for faces is greater than that for other object categories. In addition, we discuss possible qualitative differences in experience for faces and objects. For instance, there is evidence for a sensitive period in infancy for building up a holistic face representation and for perceptual narrowing for faces of one's own species and race. We conclude our literature review with questions for future research, for instance, regarding the exact relationship between behavioral and neuronal markers of face processing across development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Neurophysiology Of Face Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

Hoehl

Peykarjou

2012

Neurosci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies using the DVF paradigm to assess hemispheric specialization for holistic processing of faces have generally reported an LVF/RH advantage (Parkin & Williamson, 1987;Ramon & Rossion, 2012). Although processing of secondorder relations of faces has not been investigated so far through a DVF methodology, neuroimaging and electrophysiological evidence suggests that this type of processing taps more into the RH's resources (see Maurer et al, 2007;Scott & Nelson, 2006). In particular, fMRI evidence suggests a prevalent left-frontalhemisphere activation associated with featural processing and a prevalent right fronto-parietal activation associated with processing of second-order relations of faces (Maurer et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, featural and relational processes (and also holistic processing of faces) are also likely to be mediated by different neural networks, involving the two hemispheres differently (e.g., Maurer et al, 2007;Mercure, Dick, & Johnson, 2008;Pitcher, Walsh, Yovel, & Duchaine, 2007;Rossion et al, 2000;Scott & Nelson, 2006). In particular, holistic processing and processing of second-order relations of faces are likely to be mediated mainly by the right hemisphere (RH), whereas analysis of the single features is likely to rely mainly on the left hemisphere (LH).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Same but Different: 9‐Month‐Old Infants at Average and High Risk for Autism Look at the Same Facial Features but Process Them Using Different Brain Mechanisms

Key

Stone

2012

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lay Abstract Reduced attention to the eyes and/or increased focus on the mouth have been described as features of atypical face processing in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In this study, we examined whether 9-month-old infants at average vs. high risk for ASD differ in their detection of changes in individual facial features (eyes vs. mouth) and whether this ability is related to infants’ social and communicative skills. Eye tracking data and electrical brain activity were recorded while infants viewed repeated presentations of a smiling unfamiliar female face. Occasionally, the eyes or the mouth of that face were replaced with corresponding parts from a different face. There were no group differences in the number or duration of fixations on the eye or mouth regions for any of the face stimuli. Brain activity data revealed that all infants detected both eye and mouth changes, and that these changes were associated with changes in activity of the face-specific perception mechanisms for average-risk infants only. For all infants, the size and speed of brain responses correlated with parental reports of communication use and understanding, suggesting that differences in brain processing of faces and their features in infants are associated with individual differences in early communication skills. Scientific Abstract The study examined whether 9-month-old infants at average vs. high risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) process facial features (eyes, mouth) differently, and whether such differences are related to infants’ social and communicative skills. Eye tracking and visual event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in 35 infants (20 average-risk typical infants, 15 high-risk siblings of children with ASD) while they viewed photographs of a smiling unfamiliar female face. On 30% of the trials, the eyes or the mouth of that face were replaced with corresponding features from a different female. There were no group differences in the number, duration, or distribution of fixations, and all infants looked at the eyes and mouth regions equally. However, increased attention to the mouth was associated with weaker receptive communication skills and increased attention to the eyes correlated with better interpersonal skills. ERP results revealed that all infants detected eye and mouth changes but did so using different brain mechanisms. Changes in facial features were associated with changes in activity of the face perception mechanisms (N290) for the average-risk group, but not for the high-risk infants. For all infants, correlations between ERP and eye tracking measures indicated that larger and faster ERPs to feature changes were associated with fewer fixations on the irrelevant regions of stimuli. The size and latency of the ERP responses also correlated with parental reports of receptive and expressive communication skills, suggesting that differences in brain processing of human faces are associated with individual differences in social-communicative behaviors.

show abstract

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Cited by 150 publications

References 60 publications

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

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

Same but Different: 9‐Month‐Old Infants at Average and High Risk for Autism Look at the Same Facial Features but Process Them Using Different Brain Mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About