Configural Processing Hypothesis and Face-Inversion Effect

2010 ◽  
pp. 316-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam S. Rakover ◽  
Sam S. Rakover
Keyword(s):  
Visual Information ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
Geometrical Illusions ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Difference

Perception and recognition of faces presented upright are better than Perception and recognition of faces presented inverted. The difference between upright and inverted orientations is greater in face recognition than in non-face object recognition. This Face-Inversion Effect is explained by the “Configural Processing” hypothesis that inversion disrupts configural information processing and leaves the featural information intact. The present chapter discusses two important findings that cast doubt on this hypothesis: inversion impairs recognition of isolated features (hair & forehead, and eyes), and certain facial configural information is not affected by inversion. The chapter focuses mainly on the latter finding, which reveals a new type of facial configural information, the “Eye-Illusion”, which is based on certain geometrical illusions. The Eye-Illusion tended to resist inversion in experimental tasks of both perception and recognition. It resisted inversion also when its magnitude was reduced. Similar results were obtained with “Headlight-Illusion” produced on a car‘s front, and with “Form-Illusion” produced in geometrical forms. However, the Eye-Illusion was greater than the Headlight-Illusion, which in turn was greater than the Form-Illusion. These findings were explained by the “General Visual-Mechanism” hypothesis in terms of levels of visual information learning. The chapter proposes that a face is composed of various kinds of configural information that are differently impaired by inversion: from no effect (the Eye-Illusion) to a large effect (the Face-Inversion Effect).

Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jisien Yang ◽  
Adrian Schwaninger
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Face Processing ◽  
Underlying Mechanism ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Processing ◽  
Major Contributor ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face

Configural processing has been considered the major contributor to the face inversion effect (FIE) in face recognition. However, most researchers have only obtained the FIE with one specific ratio of configural alteration. It remains unclear whether the ratio of configural alteration itself can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. We aimed to clarify this issue by manipulating the configural information parametrically using six different ratios, ranging from 4% to 24%. Participants were asked to judge whether a pair of faces were entirely identical or different. The paired faces that were to be compared were presented either simultaneously (Experiment 1) or sequentially (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed that the FIE was observed only when the ratio of configural alteration was in the intermediate range. These results indicate that even though the FIE has been frequently adopted as an index to examine the underlying mechanism of face processing, the emergence of the FIE is not robust with any configural alteration but dependent on the ratio of configural alteration.

The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p3012 ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejo Freire ◽  
Kang Lee ◽  
Lawrence A Symons
Keyword(s):  
Face Processing ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Matching To Sample ◽  
Delayed Matching ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Configural Information ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face ◽  
Repeated Experiment

We report four experiments leading to conclusions that: (i) the face-inversion effect is mainly due to the deficits in processing of configural information from inverted faces; and (ii) this effect occurs primarily at the encoding stage of face processing, rather than at the storage stage. In experiment 1, participants discriminated upright faces differing primarily in configuration with 81% accuracy. Participants viewing the same faces presented upside down scored only 55%. In experiment 2, the corresponding discrimination rates for faces differing mainly in featural information were 91% (upright) and 90% (inverted). In experiments 3 and 4, the same faces were used in a memory paradigm. In experiment 3, a delayed matching-to-sample task was used, in which upright-face pairs differed either in configuration or features. Recognition rates were comparable to those for the corresponding upright faces in the discrimination tasks in experiments 1 and 2. However, there was no effect of delay (1 s, 5 s, or 10 s). In experiment 4, we repeated experiment 3, this time with inverted faces. Results were comparable to those of inverted conditions in experiments 1 and 2, and again there was no effect of delay. Together these results suggest that an ‘encoding bottleneck’ for configural information may be responsible for the face-inversion effect in particular, and memory for faces in general.

scholarly journals Using transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to investigate why faces are and are not special

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciro Civile ◽  
Samantha Quaglia ◽  
Emika Waguri ◽  
Maddy Ward ◽  
Rossy McLaren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Sham Group ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Anodal Tdcs ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
The Face

AbstractWe believe we are now in a position to answer the question, "Are faces special?" inasmuch as this applies to the face inversion effect (better performance for upright vs inverted faces). Using a double-blind, between-subject design, in two experiments (n = 96) we applied a specific tDCS procedure targeting the Fp3 area while participants performed a matching-task with faces (Experiment 1a) or checkerboards from a familiar prototype-defined category (Experiment 1b). Anodal tDCS eliminated the checkerboard inversion effect reliably obtained in the sham group, but only reduced it for faces (although the reduction was significant). Thus, there is a component to the face inversion effect that we are not affecting with a tDCS procedure that can eliminate the checkerboard inversion effect. We suggest that the reduction reflects the loss of an expertise-based component in the face inversion effect, and the residual is due to a face-specific component of that effect.

scholarly journals The time course of the face inversion effect

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 619-619
Author(s):  
C. Jacques ◽  
B. Rossion
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion Effect ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
The Face
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document