Abstract
Classically, it has been presumed that picture-plane inversion primarily reduces sensitivity to spacing/configural information in faces (distance between location of the major features) and has little effect on sensitivity to local feature information (e.g., eye shape or color). Here, we review 22 published studies relevant to this claim. Data show that the feature inversion effect varied substantially across studies as a function of the following factors: whether the feature change was shape only or included color/brightness, the number of faces in the stimulus set, and whether the feature was in facial context. For shape-only changes in facial context, feature inversion effects were as large as typical spacing inversion effects. Small feature inversion effects occurred only when a task could be efficiently solved by visual-processing areas outside whole-face coding. The results argue that holistic/configural processing for upright faces integrates exact feature shape and spacing between blobs. We describe two plausible approaches to this process.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barton, J. J. S.. Deepak, S., & Malik, N. (2003). Attending to faces: Change detection, familiarization, and inversion effects. Perception, 32, 15–28.
Barton, J. J. S.. Keenan, J. P., & Bass, T. (2001). Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 527–549.
Barton, J. J. S.. Zhao, J., & Keenan, J. P. (2003). Perception of global facial geometry in the inversion effect and prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1703–1711.
Boutet, I.. Collin, C., & Faubert, J. (2003). Configural face encoding and spatial frequency information. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1078–1093.
Boutet, I., & Faubert, J. (2006). Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 34, 854–864.
Cohen, L. B., & Cashon, C. H. (2001). Do 7-month-old infants process independent features of facial configurations? Infant & Child Development, 10, 83–92.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
Duchaine, B. C., & Weidenfeld, A. (2003). An evaluation of two commonly used tests of unfamiliar face recognition. Neuropsychologia, 41, 713–720.
Freire, A., & Lee, K. (2001). Face recognition in 4- to 7-year-olds: Processing of configural, featural, and paraphernalia information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 347–371.
Freire, A.. Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159–170.
Gilchrist, A., & McKone, E. (2003). Early maturity of face processing in children: Local and relational distinctiveness effects in 7-year-olds. Visual Cognition, 10, 769–793.
Goffaux, V.. Hault, B.. Michel, C.. Vuong, Q. C., & Rossion, B. (2005). The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Perception, 34, 77–86.
Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2007). Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 995–1001.
Hancock, P. J. B.. Burton, A. M., & Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis. Memory & Cognition, 24, 26–40.
Hayden, A.. Bhatt, R. S.. Reed, A.. Corbly, C. R., & Joseph, J. E. (2007). The development of expert face processing: Are infants sensitive to normal differences in second-order relational information? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 85–98.
Hayward, W. G.. Rhodes, G., & Schwaninger, A. (2008). An ownrace advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition. Cognition, 106, 1017–1027.
Jiang, X.. Rosen, E.. Zeffiro, T.. VanMeter, J.. Blanz, V., & Riesenhuber, M. (2006). Evaluation of a shape-based model of human face discrimination using fMRI and behavioral techniques. Neuron, 50, 159–172.
Kanwisher, N., & Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: A cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 361, 2109–2128.
Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 449–473.
Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 513–536.
Leder, H., & Carbon, C.-C. (2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 19–29.
Le Grand, R.. Cooper, P. A.. Mondloch, C. J.. Lewis, T. L.. Sagiv, N., de Gelder, B., & Maurer, D. (2006). What aspects of face processing are impaired in developmental prosopagnosia? Brain & Cognition, 61, 139–158.
Le Grand, R.. Mondloch, C. J.. Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.
Malcolm, G. M.. Leung, C., & Barton, J. J. S. (2004). Regional variation in the inversion effect for faces: Differential effects for feature shape, feature configuration, and external contour. Perception, 33, 1221–1231.
Martini, P.. McKone, E., & Nakayama, K. (2006). Orientation tuning of human face processing estimated by contrast matching on transparency displays. Vision Research, 46, 2102–2109.
Maurer, D.. Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
Maurer, D.. O’Craven, K. M.. Le Grand, R.. Mondloch, C. J., Springer, M. V.. Lewis, T. L., & Grady, C. L. (2007). Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1438–1451.
McKone, E. (2004). Isolating the special component of face recognition: Peripheral identification and a Mooney face. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 181–197.
McKone, E. (2008). Configural processing and face viewpoint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 310–327.
McKone, E. (in press). Face and object recognition: How do they differ? In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Tutorials in visual cognition. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
McKone, E., & Boyer, B. L. (2006). Sensitivity of 4-year-olds to featural and second-order relational changes in face distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 134–162.
McKone, E.. Crookes, K., & Kanwisher, N. (in press). The cognitive and neural development of face recognition in humans. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences IV (4th Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
McKone, E.. Martini, P., & Nakayama, K. (2001). Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 573–599.
Mondloch, C. J.. Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31, 553–566.
Mondloch, C. J.. Maurer, D., & Ahola, S. (2006). Becoming a face expert. Psychological Science, 17, 930–934.
Mondloch, C. J., & Thomson, K. (2008). Limitations in four-year-old children’s sensitivity to the spacing among facial features. Child Development, 79, 1514–1524.
Moscovitch, M.. Winocur, G., & Behrmann, M. (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 Neuroscience, 9, 555–604.
Murray, J. E.. Yong, E., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11, 492–496.
Pellicano, E., & Rhodes, G. (2003). Holistic processing of faces in preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 14, 618–622.
Pellicano, E.. Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2006). Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces? Developmental Science, 9, 270–277.
Pitcher, D.. Walsh, V.. Yovel, G., & Duchaine, B. C. (2007). TMS evidence for the involvement of the right occipital face area in early face processing. Current Biology, 17, 1568–1573.
Rajapakse, M., & Guo, Y. (2001). Multiple landmark feature point mapping for robust face recognition. In J. Bigün & F. Smeraldi (Eds.), Proceedings of Audio- and Video-Based Biometric Person Authentication, Third International Conference, AVBPA 2001 (pp. 95–101). Berlin: Springer.
Rakover, S. S., & Teucher, B. (1997). Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationship. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 752–761.
Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, 43–63.
Rhodes, G.. Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25–57.
Rhodes, G.. Brennan, S., & Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 473–497.
Rhodes, G.. Hayward, W. G., & Winkler, C. (2006). Expert face coding: Configural and component coding of own-race and other-race faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 499–505.
Riesenhuber, M.. Jarudi, I.. Gilad, S., & Sinha, P. (2004). Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape-based model of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, S448-S450.
Robbins, R., & McKone, E. (2003). Can holistic processing be learned for inverted faces? Cognition, 88, 79–107.
Rossion, B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128, 274–289.
Rotshtein, P.. Geng, J. J.. Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face discrimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1435–1452.
Russell, R.. Biederman, I.. Nederhouser, M., & Sinha, P. (2007). The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces. Vision Research, 47, 157–165.
Schiltz, C., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are represented holistically in the human occipito-temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 32, 1385–1394.
Schwaninger, A.. Wallraven, C., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Computational modeling of face recognition based on psychophysical experiments. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 207–215.
Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 904–915.
Sekunova, A., & Barton, J. J. S. (2008). The effects of face inversion on the perception of long-range and local spatial relations in eye and mouth configuration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 1129–1135.
Sugita, Y. (2008). Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 394–398.
Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.
Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.
Thompson, L. A.. Madrid, V.. Westbrook, S., & Johnston, V. (2001). Infants attend to second-order relational properties of faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 769–777.
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161–204.
Young, A. W.. Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
Yovel, G., & Duchaine, B. C. (2006). Specialized face perception mechanisms extract both part and spacing information: Evidence from developmental prosopagnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 580–593.
Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific. Neuron, 44, 889–898.
Yovel, G., & Kanwisher, N. (2008). The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 933–939.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council (DP0450636) to E.M. and by Marie Curie-IRG 046448 to G.Y.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McKone, E., Yovel, G. Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 778–797 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.778
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.778