A visual-search task was used to investigate the influence of facial organisation on discrimination of an internal facial feature. Participants searched for a downturned mouth in arrays of one to six faces that differed only in the target feature, with distractor faces containing an upturned mouth. Feature search was tested in four different face contexts: upright unaltered faces, inverted unaltered faces, upright faces in which the internal features were scrambled, or inverted scrambled faces. Normal face organisation facilitated feature search in upright faces, but slowed it in inverted faces. These findings demonstrate an interdependence of features and their configuration in the perceptual analysis of both upright and inverted faces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguirreG KSinghRD'EspositoM, 1999“Stimulus inversion and the responses of face and object-sensitive cortical areas”Neuroreport10189–194.
2.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ, 1993“Inversion and configuration of faces”Cognitive Psychology25281–316.
3.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ HAbdiH, 2003“What are the routes to face recognition?”, in Analytic and Holistic Processes in the Percepton of Faces, Objects, and Scenes Eds PetersonMRhodesG, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 21–52.
4.
BruceVHumphreysG W, 1994“Recognizing objects and faces”Visual Cognition1141–180.
5.
ChunM MWolfeJ M, 1996“Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?”Cognitive Psychology3039–78.
6.
FreireALeeKSymonsL A, 2000“The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence”Perception29159–170.
7.
HaxbyJ VHoffmanE AGobbiniM I, 2000“The distributed human neural system for face perception”Trends in Cognitive Sciences4223–233.
8.
HaxbyJ VUngerleiderL GClarkV PSchoutenJ LHoffmanE AMartinA, 1999“The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception”Neuron11189–199.
9.
HoleG JGeorgeP ADunsmoreV, 1999“Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives”Perception28341–359.
10.
KanwisherNDowningPEpsteinRKourtziZ, 2001“Functional neuroimaging of human visual recognition”, in The Handbook on Functional Neuroimaging Eds CabezaRKingstoneA, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 109–152.
11.
KanwisherNTongFNakayamaK, 1998“The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area”Cognition681–11.
12.
KuehnS MJolicoeurP, 1994“Impact of quality of the image, orientation, and similarity of the stimuli on visual search for faces”Perception2395–122.
13.
LederH, 1996“Line drawings of faces reduce configural processing”Perception25355–366.
14.
LederHCandrianGHuberOBruceV, 2001“Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces”Perception3073–83.
15.
MermelsteinRBanksWPrinzmetalW, 1979“Figural goodness effects in perception and memory”Perception & Psychophysics26472–480.
16.
MoscovitchMMoscovitchD A, 2000“Super face-inversion effects for isolated internal or external features, and or fractured faces”Cognitive Neuropsychology17201–219.
17.
MoscovitchMWinocurGBehrmannM, 1997“What is special about face recognition?: Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition”Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience9555–604.
18.
MurrayJ EYongERhodesG, 2000“Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces”Psychological Science11492–496.
19.
RhodesGBrakeSAtkinsonA P, 1993“What's lost in inverted faces?”Cognition4725–57.
20.
SchneiderW, 1988“Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatible”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers20206–217.
21.
SearcyJ HBartlettJ C, 1996“Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance11904–915.
22.
SuzukiSCavanaghP, 1995“Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21901–913.
23.
TanakaJ WFarahM, 1993“Parts and whole in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology46225–245.
24.
TanakaJ WSengcoJ A, 1997“Features and their configuration in face recognition”Memory & Cognition25583–592.
25.
TarrM, 2003“Visual object recognition: Can a single mechanism suffice”, in Analytic and Holistic Processes in the Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes Eds PetersonMRhodesG, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 177–211.
26.
ThompsonP, 1980“Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion”Perception9483–484.
27.
TongFNakayamaK, 1999“Robust representations for faces: Evidence from visual search”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance251016–1035.
28.
TongFNakayamaKMoscovitchMWeinribOKanwisherN, 2000“Response properties of the human fusiform face area”Cognitive Neuropsychology17257–279.
29.
TreismanAGormicanS, 1988“Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries”Psychological Review9515–48.
30.
YoungA WHellawellDHayD C, 1987“Configurational information in face perception”Perception16747–759.
