We investigated here the detection of 2nd-order configural relations both in faces and in non-face objects. In experiment 1 it was shown that observers were more sensitive to feature displacements in upright faces and houses than in inverted faces and houses. The presence of an inversion effect in the house stimuli suggested that 2nd-order relational processing was applied to the non-face stimuli. In experiment 2, the inversion effect for houses was absent when only houses were presented. In experiment 3, face and house stimuli were once again presented in the same task and inversion effects were again seen for both types of stimuli. Together, these results suggest that 2nd-order relational processing can be flexibly applied to non-face objects when they are presented in the context of faces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnakiDMoscovitchM, 2007“When a face is (or is not) more than the sum of its features: Configural and analytic processes in facial temporal integration”Visual Cognition15741–763.
2.
AshworthA R SIIIVuongQ CRossionBTarrM J, 2007“Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?”Visual Cognition16754–784.
3.
BartlettJ CSearcyJ, 1993“Inversion and configuration of faces”Cognitive Psychology25281–316.
4.
BartonJ J SKeenanJ PBassT, 2001“Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration”British Journal of Psychology92527–549.
5.
BrooksR MGoldsteinA G, 1963“Recognition of children of inverted photographs of faces”Child Development341033–1040.
6.
BukachC MGauthierITarrM J, 2006“Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework”Trends in Cognitive Sciences10159–166.
7.
DiamondRCareyS, 1986“Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General115107–117.
8.
EimerM, 2000“Effects of face inversion on the structural encoding of recognition of faces: Evidence from event-related potentials”Cognitive Brain Research10145–158.
9.
EllisH D, 1975“Recognizing faces”British Journal of Psychology66409–426.
10.
EllisH DYoungA W, 1996“Faces in their social and biological context”, in Face and Mind Ed. YoungA W, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp 67–95.
11.
FarahM, 1990Visual Agnosia (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
12.
GauthierIBukachC, 2007“Should we reject the expertise hypothesis?”Cognition103322–330.
13.
GauthierISkudlarskiPGoreJ CAndersonA W, 2002“Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition”Nature Neuroscience34191–197.
14.
GloverSDixonP, 2004“Likelihood ratios: A simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11791–806.
15.
GoldsteinA G, 1975“Recognition of inverted photographs of faces by children and adults”Journal of Genetic Psychology127109–123.
16.
GreenhouseS WGeisserS, 1959“On methods in the analysis of profile data”Psychometrika2495–112.
17.
HaigN D, 1984“The effect of feature displacement on face recognition”Perception13505–512.
18.
HoehlerF K, 1995“Logistic equations in the analysis of s-shaped curves”Computers in Biology and Medicine25367–371.
19.
KempRMcManusCPigottT, 1990“Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images”Perception19531–543.
20.
LederHBruceV, 1998“Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A51449–473.
21.
LederHBruceV, 2000“When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A53513–536.
22.
LederHCarbonC-C, 2006“Face-specific configural processing of relational information”British Journal of Psychology9719–29.
23.
McKoneEMartiniPNakayamaK, 2001“Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27573–599.
24.
MaurerDLe GrandRMondlochC J, 2002“The many faces of configural processing”Trends in Cognitive Sciences6255–260.
25.
MondlochC JMaurerDAholaS, 2006“Becoming a face expert”Psychological Science17930–934.
26.
PinkerS, 1997How the Mind Works (New York: Norton & Co).
27.
PortinKVanniSVirsuVHariR, 1999“Stronger occipital cortical activation to lower than upper visual field stimuli”Experimental Brain Research124287–294.
28.
RodmanH RScalaidheS P OGrossC G, 1993“Response properties of neurons in temporal cortical visual areas of infant monkeys”Journal of Neurophysiology701115–1136.
29.
RossionBKungCTarrM J, 2004“Visual expertise with nonface objects leads to competition with the early perceptual processing of faces in the human occipitotemporal cortex”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA10114521–14526.
30.
SchwaningerACarbonC CLederH, 2003“Expert face processing: Specialization and constraints”, in Development of Face Processing Eds SchwarzerGLederH, (Göttingen: Hogrefe).
31.
SearcyJ HBartlettJ C, 1996“Inversion and processing of component and spatial–relational information in faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22904–915.
32.
TarrM JGauthierI, 2000“FFA: A flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise”Nature Neuroscience3764–769.
33.
TanakaJ WCurranT, 2001“A neural basis for expert object recognition”Psychological Science1243–47.
34.
TanakaJ WFarahM J, 1993“Parts and wholes in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A46225–245.
35.
TreutweinBStrasburgerH, 1999“Fitting the psychometric function”Perception & Psychophysics6187–106.
36.
ValentineT, 1991“A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A43161–204.
37.
YinR K, 1969“Looking at upside down faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology81141–145.
38.
YovelGKanwisherN, 2004“Face perception: Domain specific, not process specific”Neuron44889–898.
