Inversion disrupts encoding of faces because of the disruption of configural encoding as evident in the Thatcher illusion (Thompson 1980, Perception9 483–484). Here we consider the effect of rotation on the loss of configural encoding in a same/different matching paradigm. Participants decided whether two faces were of the same type (both normal or both Thatcherised) or not, at five angles of rotation (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°). When the faces were both of the same person, the disruption due to rotation for ‘same-type’ judgments was linear and approximately equal for normal and Thatcherised face pairs. In experiment 2, with different-person face pairs, the effect of rotation was much greater for Thatcherised face pairs than for normal face pairs. These findings are in contrast to those reported by Boutsen and Humphreys (2003, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A56 955–975), and reasons for these differences, along with implications, are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ, 1993“Inversion and configuration of faces”Cognitive Psychology25281–316
2.
BoutsenLHumphreysG W, 2003“The effect of inversion on the encoding of normal and ‘Thatcherized’ faces”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A56955–975
3.
CarbonC CLederH, 2005“When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces”Perception341117–1134
4.
CarbonC CSchweinbergerS RKaufmannJ MLederH, 2005“The Thatcher illusion seen by the brain: An event-related brain potentials study”Cognitive Brain Research24544–555
5.
CareySDiamondR, 1977“From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces”Science195312–314
6.
CorballisM CZbrodoffN JShetzerL IButlerP B, 1978“Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits”Memory & Cognition698–107
7.
DiamondRCareyS, 1986“Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General115107–117
8.
LewisM B, 2001“The Lady's not for turning. Rotation of the Thatcher illusion”Perception30769–774
9.
LewisM BGlenisterT E, 2003“A sideways look at configural encoding: Two different effects of face rotation”Perception327–14
10.
LewisM BJohnstonR A, 1997“The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption”Perception26225–227
11.
MurrayJ EYongERhodesG, 2000“Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces”Psychological Science11498–502
12.
RhodesGBrakeSAtkinsonA P, 1993“What's lost in inverted faces”Cognition4725–57
13.
RockI, 1973Orientation and Form (San Diego, CA: Academic Press)
14.
SchwaningerAMastF W, 2005“The face-inversion effect can be explained by the capacity limitations of an orientation normalization mechanism”Japanese Psychological Research47216–222
15.
SearcyJ HBartlettJ C, 1996“Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22904–915
16.
SergentJ, 1984“An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception”British Journal of Psychology75221–242
17.
ShepardR NMetzlerJ, 1971“Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects”Science171701–703
18.
SturzelFSpillmannL, 2000“Thatcher illusion: Dependence on angle of rotation”Perception29937–942
19.
ThompsonP, 1980“Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion”Perception9483–484
20.
ValentineTBruceV, 1988“Mental rotation of faces”Memory & Cognition16556–566
21.
YinR K, 1969“Looking at upside-down faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology81141–145
