Spatial Location in Brief,Free-Viewing Face Encoding Modulates Contextual Face Recognition

Abstract

The effect of the spatial location of faces in the visual field during brief, free-viewing encoding in subsequent face recognition is not known. This study addressed this question by tagging three groups of faces with cheating, cooperating or neutral behaviours and presenting them for encoding in two visual hemifields (upper vs. lower or left vs. right). Participants then had to indicate if a centrally presented face had been seen before or not. Head and eye movements were free in all phases. Findings showed that the overall recognition of cooperators was significantly better than cheaters, and it was better for faces encoded in the upper hemifield than in the lower hemifield, both in terms of a higher d' and faster reaction time (RT). The d' for any given behaviour in the left and right hemifields was similar. The RT in the left hemifield did not vary with tagged behaviour, whereas the RT in the right hemifield was longer for cheaters than for cooperators. The results showed that memory biases in contextual face recognition were modulated by the spatial location of briefly encoded faces and are discussed in terms of scanning reading habits, top-left bias in lighting preference and peripersonal space.

Keywords

face recognition visual anisotropy memory biases cheater detection cooperation

References

Anderson

Siegel

E. H.

Bliss-Moreau

Barrett

L. F.

(2011). The visual impact of gossip. Science, 332(6036), 1446–1448. doi:10.1126/science.1201574

Axelrod

Hamilton

W. D.

(1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. doi:10.1126/science.7466396

Barclay

(2008). Enhanced recognition of defectors depends on their rarity. Cognition, 107, 817–828. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.013

Barclay

Lalumiere

(2006). Do people differently remember cheaters? Human Nature, 17, 98–113. doi:10.1007/s12110-006-1022-y

Bell

Buchner

(2012). How adaptive is memory for cheaters? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 403–408. doi:10.1177/0963721412458525

Blais

Jack

R. E.

Scheepers

Fiset

Caldara

(2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS ONE, 3, e3022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003022

Bonner

Burton

A. M.

Bruce

(2003). Getting to know you: How we learn new faces. Visual Cognition, 10, 507–536. doi:10.1080/13506280244000168

Bourne

V. J.

Hole

G. J.

(2006). Lateralized repetition priming for familiar faces: Evidence for asymmetric interhemispheric cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1117–1133. doi:10.1080/02724980543000150

Brown

W. M.

Moore

(2000). Is prospective altruist detection an evolved solution to the adaptive problem of subtle cheating in cooperative ventures? Evidence from the Wason Selection Task. Evolution of Human Behavior, 21, 25–37. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00018-5

10.

Buchner

Bell

Mehl

Musch

(2009). No enhanced recognition memory, but better source memory for faces of cheaters. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 212–224. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.01.004

11.

Carlson

Hogendoorn

Fonteijn

Verstraten

(2011). Spatial coding and invariance in object-selective cortex. Cortex, 47, 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.015

12.

Chiappe

Brown

Dow

Koontz

Rodriguez

McCulloch

(2004). Cheaters are looked at longer and remembered better than co-operators in social exchange. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 108–120.

13.

Christman

(1993). Local-global processing in the upper versus lower visual fields. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 275–278.

14.

Cosmides

(1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1

15.

Felisberti

F. M.

Cox

Wanli

Dover

(2013). Social context modulates face recognition in young and intermediate age adults. In: Experimental Psychology Society London Meeting. London.

16.

Felisberti

F. M.

Pavey

(2010). Contextual modulation of biases in face recognition. PLoS ONE, 5(9), e12939. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012939

17.

Gerardin

De Montalembert

Mamassian

(2007). Shape from shading: New perspectives from the Polo Mint stimulus. Journal of Vision, 7, 1–11. doi:10.1167/7.11.13

18.

Goel

Shuren

Sheesley

Grafman

(2004). Asymmetrical involvement of frontal lobes in social reasoning. Brain, 127, 783–790. doi:10.1093/brain/awh086

19.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A.

(1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Krieger.

20.

Hagenbeek

R. E.

Van Strien

J. W.

(2002). Left-right and upper-lower visual field asymmetries for face matching, letter naming, and lexical decision. Brain and Cognition, 49, 34–44. doi:10.1006/brcg.2001.1481

21.

Hautus

M. J.

(1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d’. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 27, 46–51. doi:10.3758/BF03203619

22.

Heath

R. L.

Rouhana

Ghanem

D. A.

(2005). Asymmetric bias in perception of facial affect among Roman and Arabic script readers. Laterality, 10, 51–64. doi:10.1080/13576500342000293

23.

Hillger

L. A.

Koenig

(1991). Separable mechanisms in face processing: Evidence for hemispheric specialisation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 42–58. doi:10.1162/jocn.1991.3.1.42

24.

Hines

Jordan-Brown

Juzwin

K. R.

(1987). Hemispheric visual processing in face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 6, 91–100. doi:10.1016/0278-2626(87)90048-0

25.

Luh

K. E.

Rueckert

L. M.

Levy

(1991). Perceptual asymmetries for free viewing of several types of chimeric stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 16, 83–103. doi:10.1016/0278-2626(91)90087

26.

Macmillan

N. A.

Creelman

C. D.

(2004). Detection theory: A user's guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

27.

Mamassian

Goutcher

(2001). Prior knowledge on the illumination position. Cognition, 81, B1–B9. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00116-0

28.

Megreya

A. M.

Havard

(2011). Left face matching bias: Right hemisphere dominance or scanning habits? Laterality, 16, 75–92. doi:10.1080/13576500903213755

29.

Mehl

Buchner

(2008). No enhanced memory for cheaters. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 35–41. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.08.001

30.

Previc

F. H.

(1990). Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 519–575. doi:10.1017/s0140525times00080018

31.

Proverbio

A. M.

Riva

Martin

Zani

(2010). Face coding is bilateral in the female brain. PLoS ONE, 5, e11242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011242

32.

Raymond

J. E.

(2002). Upper-lower visual field effects on the visual memory for incidentally viewed branded images. In Broniarczyk

S. M.

Nakamoto

(Eds.), NA—Advances in consumer research (Vol. 29, pp. 223–224). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

33.

Sakhuja

Gupta

G. C.

Singh

Vaid

(1996). Reading habits affect asymmetries in facial affect judgements: A replication. Brain and Cognition, 32, 162–164. doi:10.1006/brcg.1996.0064

34.

Sergent

(1984). Configural processing of faces in the left and the right cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 554–572. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.4.554

35.

Sommerfeld

R. D.

Krambeck

H.-J.

Semmann

Milinski

(2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. PNAS, 104, 17435–17440. doi:10.1073.pnas.0704598104

36.

Stone

Valentine

(2005). Strength of visual percept generated by famous faces perceived without awareness: Effects of affective valence, response latency, and visual field. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 548–564. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.01.009.

37.

Thomas

N. A.

Elias

L. J.

(2011). Upper and lower visual field differences in perceptual asymmetries. Brain Research, 1387, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.02.063

38.

Trivers

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755

39.

Yarmey

A. D.

(1993). Stereotypes and recognition memory for faces and voices of good guys and bad guys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 419–431. doi:10.1002/acp.2350070505

40.

Yovel

Tambini

Brandman

(2008). The asymmetry of the fusiform face area is a stable individual characteristic that underlies the left-visual field superiority for faces. Neuropsychologia, 46, 3061–3068. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.06.017