scholarly journals Face-inversion effects flex with perceptual learning

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 153-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Hussain ◽  
P. J. Bennett ◽  
A. B. Sekuler
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Laycock ◽  
Kylie Wood ◽  
Andrea Wright ◽  
Sheila G. Crewther ◽  
Melvyn A. Goodale

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 201-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Moscovitch ◽  
David A. Moscovitch

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. James ◽  
Lindsay R. Arcurio ◽  
Jason M. Gold

The face inversion effect has been used as a basis for claims about the specialization of face-related perceptual and neural processes. One of these claims is that the fusiform face area (FFA) is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. However, the studies on which these claims were based almost exclusively used stimulus manipulations of whole faces. Here, we tested inversion effects using single, discrete features and combinations of multiple discrete features, in addition to whole faces, using both behavioral and fMRI measurements. In agreement with previous studies, we found behavioral inversion effects with whole faces and no inversion effects with a single eye stimulus or the two eyes in combination. However, we also found behavioral inversion effects with feature combination stimuli that included features in the top and bottom halves (eyes-mouth and eyes-nose-mouth). Activation in the FFA showed an inversion effect for the whole-face stimulus only, which did not match the behavioral pattern. Instead, a pattern of activation consistent with the behavior was found in the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, which is a component of the extended face-preferring network. The results appear inconsistent with claims that the FFA is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. They are more consistent with claims that the FFA shows a stimulus preference for whole upright faces.


Author(s):  
Robin Laycock ◽  
Kylie Wood ◽  
Andrea Wright ◽  
Sheila G. Crewther ◽  
Melvyn A. Goodale

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciro Civile ◽  
Di Zhao ◽  
Yixuan Ku ◽  
Heike Elchlepp ◽  
Aureliu Lavric ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miho Nakamura ◽  
Shoko Watanabe ◽  
Masumi Inagaki ◽  
Masahiro Hirai ◽  
Kensaku Miki ◽  
...  

Neuroreport ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 587-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula P. Tavares ◽  
Susana S. Mouga ◽  
Guiomar G. Oliveira ◽  
Miguel Castelo-Branco

1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.P.L. McLaren

This paper reports two experiments that investigate the extent to which it is plausible to suppose that an associatively based mechanism for perceptual learning acts as the basis for the effects of inversion on identification, recognition, matching and discrimination of faces (and certain other stimuli rendered familiar by expertise, e.g. gundogs). In the first experiment, an inversion effect that is contingent both on familiarity with a category and on the category possessing prototypical structure is demonstrated using discrimination learning of chequerboard stimuli. The second experiment demonstrates that the inversion effect found in Experiment 1 can generalize to a recognition paradigm as well. These results are discussed within the framework provided by associative learning theory, and a parallel is drawn with models employing a norm-based coding in similarity space. The conclusion is that it would be remarkable if the inversion effects demonstrated with the abstract categories used in the experiments reported here were not implicated in the inversion effects found with other classes of stimuli, whilst conceding that the analogy is not complete, particularly in the case of faces.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document