It is extraordinarily difficult to recognize a face in an image with negated contrast, as in a photographic negative. The variation among faces can be partitioned into two general sources: (a) shape and (b) surface reflectance, here termed ‘pigmentation’. To determine whether negation differentially affects the processing of shape or pigmentation, we made two sets of faces where the individual faces differed only in shape in one set and only in pigmentation in the other. Surprisingly, matching performance was significantly impaired by contrast negation only when the faces varied in pigmentation. This provides evidence that the perception of pigmentation, not shape, is selectively disrupted by negation and, by extension, that pigmentation contributes to the neural representation of face identity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
2.
BiedermanIJuG, 1988“Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition”Cognitive Psychology2038–64
BrajeW LKerstenDTarrM JTrojeN F, 1998“Illumination effects in face recognition”Psychobiology26371–380
5.
BruceVLangtonS, 1994“The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces”Perception23803–822
6.
BruceVYoungA, 1998In the Eye of the Beholder: The Science of Face Perception (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
7.
DiamondRCareyS, 1986“Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General115107–117
8.
FlemingR WDrorR OAdelsonE H, 2001“How do humans determine reflectance properties under unknown illumination?”, in CVPR (Kauai, Hawaii: IEEE)
9.
FlemingR WJensenH WBülthoffH H, 2004“Perceiving translucent materials”, in ACM SIGGRAPH (Los Angeles, CA: Association for Computing Machinery)
10.
FreireALeeKSymonsL A, 2000“The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence”Perception29159–170
11.
GalperR E, 1970“Recognition of faces in photographic negative”Psychonomic Science19207–208
12.
GalperR EHochbergJ, 1971“Recognition memory for photographs of faces”American Journal of Psychology84351–354
13.
GeorgeNDolanR JFinkG RBaylisG CRussellCDriverJ, 1999“Contrast polarity and face recognition in the human fusiform gyrus”Nature Neuroscience2574–580
14.
HancockP J BBruceVBurtonA M, 2000“Recognition of unfamiliar faces”Trends in Cognitive Sciences4330–337
15.
HayesTMorroneM CBurrD C, 1986“Recognition of positive and negative bandpass-filtered images”Perception15595–602
16.
HillHBruceV, 1996“Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22986–1004
17.
HillHBruceVAkamatsuS, 1995“Perceiving the sex and race of faces: The role of shape and colour”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B261367–373
18.
HoleG JGeorgeP ADunsmoreV, 1999“Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives”Perception28341–359
19.
HornB K H, 1986Robot Vision (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
20.
JohnstonAHillHCarmanN, 1992“Recognising faces: Effects of lighting direction, inversion, and brightness reversal”Perception21365–375
21.
JohnstonAPassmoreP J, 1994“Shape from shading. I: Surface curvature and orientation”Perception23169–189
22.
JonesB CLittleA CBurtD MPerrettD I, 2004“When facial attractiveness is only skin deep”Perception33569–576
23.
KempRMcManusCPigottT, 1990“Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images”Perception19531–543
24.
KempRPikeGWhitePMusselmanA, 1996“Perception and recognition of normal and negative faces: The role of shape from shading and pigmentation cues”Perception2537–52
25.
LederHBruceV, 2000“When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology53513–536
26.
LederHCandrianGHuberOBruceV, 2001“Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces”Perception3073–83
27.
LeGrandRMondlochC JMaurerDBrentH P, 2001“Early visual experience and face processing”Nature410890
28.
LewisM BJohnstonR A, 1997“The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption”Perception26225–227
29.
LiuC HChaudhuriA, 1997“Face recognition with multi-tone and two-tone photographic negatives”Perception261289–1296
30.
LiuC HCollinC ABurtonA MChaudhuriA, 1999“Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative”Vision Research394003–4009
31.
LiuC HCollinC AChaudhuriA, 2000“Does face recognition rely on encoding of 3-D surface? Examining the role of shape-from-shading and shape-from-stereo”Perception29729–743
32.
MosesYAdiniYUllmanS, 1994“Face recognition: The problem of compensating for illumination changes”Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (Berlin: Springer) pp 286–296
33.
NederhouserMManginiM CBiedermanIOkadaK, 2003“Invariance to contrast inversion when matching objects with face-like surface structure and pigmentation”Journal of Vision393
34.
O'TooleA JVetterTBlanzV, 1999“Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: An application of three-dimensional morphing”Vision Research393145–3155
35.
PelliD G, 1997“The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies”Spatial Vision10437–442
36.
PhillipsR J, 1972“Why are faces hard to recognize in photographic negative”Perception & Psychophysics12425–426
37.
RamachandranV S, 1988“Perception of shape from shading”Nature331163–166
38.
RussellR, 2003“Sex, beauty, and the relative luminance of facial features”Perception321093–1107
39.
SinhaP, 2002“Qualitative representations for recognition”Lecture Notes in Computer Science2525249–262
40.
SinhaPGiladS, 2004, “Face recognition with contrast chimeras”Journal of Vision4216 (abstract)
