Several studies investigated the role of featural and configural information when processing facial identity. A lot less is known about their contribution to emotion recognition. In this study, we addressed this issue by inducing either a featural or a configural processing strategy (Experiment 1) and by investigating the attentional strategies in response to emotional expressions (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants identified emotional expressions in faces that were presented in three different versions (intact, blurred, and scrambled) and in two orientations (upright and inverted). Blurred faces contain mainly configural information, and scrambled faces contain mainly featural information. Inversion is known to selectively hinder configural processing. Analyses of the discriminability measure (A′) and response times (RTs) revealed that configural processing plays a more prominent role in expression recognition than featural processing, but their relative contribution varies depending on the emotion. In Experiment 2, we qualified these differences between emotions by investigating the relative importance of specific features by means of eye movements. Participants had to match intact expressions with the emotional cues that preceded the stimulus. The analysis of eye movements confirmed that the recognition of different emotions rely on different types of information. While the mouth is important for the detection of happiness and fear, the eyes are more relevant for anger, fear, and sadness.
AdolphsR. (2002). Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: Psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1(1), 21–62. doi: 10.1177/1534582302001001003
2.
AdolphsR., GosselinF., BuchananT. W., TranelD., SchynsP., DamasioA. R. (2005). A mechanism for impaired fear recognition after amygdala damage. Nature, 433(7021), 68–72. doi: 10.1038/nature03086
3.
BartlettJ. C., SearcyJ. H., AbdiH. (2003). What are the routes to face recognition?. In PetersonM.RhodesG. (Ed.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes, (pp. 21–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
Bassili, J. N. (1978). Facial motion in the perception of faces and of emotional expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 373–379.
5.
BindemannM., ScheepersC., BurtonA. M. (2009). Viewpoint and center of gravity affect eye movements to human faces. Journal of Vision, (2, Article 7), 1–16. doi:10.1167/9.2.7
6.
BombariD., MastF. W., LobmaierJ. S. (2009). Featural, configural, and holistic face-processing strategies evoke different scan patterns. Perception, 38(10), 1508–1521. doi: 10.1068/p6117
7.
BruceV., YoungA. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x
8.
ButlerS. H., HarveyM. (2005). Does inversion abolish the left chimeric face processing advantage?. Neuroreport, 16(18), 1991–1993. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200512190-00004
9.
CabezaR., KatoT. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11(5), 429–433. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00283
10.
CalderA. J., YoungA. W., KeaneJ., DeanM. (2000). Configural information in facial expression perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 527–551. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.26.2.527
11.
CollishawS. M., HoleG. J. (2000). Featural and configurational processes in the recognition of faces of different familiarity. Perception, 29(8), 893–909. doi: 10.1068/p2949
12.
DaddsM. R., PerryY., HawesD. J., MerzS., RiddellA. C., HainesD. J., AbeygunawardaneA. I. (2006). Attention to the eyes and fear-recognition deficits in child psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 189(3), 280–281. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.018150
13.
DerntlB., SeidelE.-M., KainzE., CarbonC. C. (2009). Recognition of emotional expressions is affected by inversion and presentation time. Perception, 38, 1849–1862. doi: 10.1068/p6448
14.
EllisonJ. W., MassaroD. W. (1997). Featural evaluation, integration, and judgment of facial affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(1), 213–226.
15.
HaxbyJ., HoffmanE., GobbiniM. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 223–233. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0
16.
HorstmannG., LippO. V., BeckerS. I. (2012). Of toothy grins and angry snarls? Open mouth displays contribute to efficiency gains in search for emotional faces. Journal of Vision, 12(5, Article 7), 1–15. doi: 10.1167/12.5.7
17.
JackR. E., BlaisC., ScheepersC., SchynsP. G., CaldaraR. (2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Current Biology, 19(18), 1543–1548. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051
18.
KeltnerD., KringA. M. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320–342. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.320
19.
LangnerO., BeckerE. S., RinckM. (2009). Social anxiety and anger identification: Bubbles reveal differential use of facial information with low spatial frequencies. Psychological Science, 20(6), 666–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02357.x
20.
LederH., BruceV. (1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 51(3), 449–473. doi:10.1080/713755777
21.
LederH., BruceV. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53(2), 513–536. doi:10.1080/713755889
22.
LeppänenJ. M., HietanenJ. K. (2004). Positive facial expressions are recognized faster than negative facial expressions, but why?. Psychological Research, 69(1–2), 22–29. doi: 10.1007/s00426-003-0157-2
23.
LeppänenJ. M., HietanenJ. K. (2007). Is there more in a happy face than just a big smile?. Visual Cognition, 15(4), 468–490. doi: 10.1080/13506280600765333
24.
LobmaierJ. S., KlaverP., LoennekerT., MartinE., MastF. W. (2008). Featural and configural face processing strategies: Evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroreport, 19(3), 287–291. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f556fe
25.
LobmaierJ. S., MastF. W. (2007). Perception of novel faces: The parts have it!. Perception, 36(11), 1660–1673. doi: 10.1068/p5642
26.
LundqvistD., FlyktA., ÖhmanA. (1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces–KDEF [CD ROM]. Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology Section.
27.
McKelvieS. J. (1995). Emotional expression in upside-down faces: Evidence for configurational and componential processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 325–334.
28.
MielletS., CaldaraR., SchynsP. (2011). Local Jekyll and global Hyde: The dual identity of face identification. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1518–1526. doi: 10.1177/0956797611424290
29.
NowickiS.Jr., DukeM. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9–35. doi: 10.1007/BF02169077
30.
PegnaA. J., KhatebA., LazeyrasF., SeghierM. L. (2005). Discriminating emotional faces without primary visual cortices involves the right amygdala. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 24–25. doi: 10.1038/nn1364
31.
PrkachinG. C. (2003). The effects of orientation on detection and identification of facial expressions of emotion. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 45–62. doi: 10.1348/000712603762842093
32.
RakoverS. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1–30. doi: 10.1348/000712602162427
33.
RossionB., DricotL., DevolderA., BodartJ. M., CrommelinckM., De GelderB., ZoontjesR. (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries for whole-based and part-based face processing in the human fusiform gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 793–802.
34.
Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J. S., & Collishaw, S. M. (2002). Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2525, 643–650.
35.
SchwaningerA., LobmaierJ. S., WallravenC., CollishawS. (2009). Two routes to face perception: Evidence from psychophysics and computational modeling. Cognitive Science, 33(8), 1413–1440. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01059.x
36.
SekulerA. B., GasparC. M., GoldJ. M., BennettP. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14(5), 391–396. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.02.028
37.
SmithF. W., SchynsP. G. (2009). Smile through your fear and sadness: Transmitting and identifying facial expression signals over a range of viewing distances. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1202–1208. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02427.x
38.
SmithM. L., CottrellG. W., GosselinF., SchynsP. G. (2005). Transmitting and decoding facial expressions. Psychological Science, 16(3), 184–189. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00801.x
39.
SnodgrassJ. G., Levy-BergerG., HaydonM. (1985). Human experimental psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
