Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In two experiments, the effect of orientation on face perception was assessed. Using a scale from 1 (normal) to 7 (bizarre), participants rated normal, unaltered faces and faces in which changes had been made to spatial-relational properties (eyes and mouth inverted or relative position of the eyes and mouth altered) or to component properties (eyes whitened and teeth blackened). For unaltered and component-distortion faces, bizarreness ratings increased linearly as orientation increased from 0° to 180°. For spatial-distortion faces, a discontinuity in the function relating orientation and bizarreness was in evidence between 90° and 120°. The results provide support for the view that there is a qualitative difference in the processing of upright and inverted faces due to the disproportionate effect of inversion on the encoding of spatial-relational information.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartlett

J.C.

Searcy

(1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–316.

Carey

Diamond

(1977). From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. Science, 195, 312–314.

Diamond

Carey

(1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.

Farah

M.J.

(1996). Is face recognition special: Evidence from neuropsychology. Behavioral Brain Research, 76, 181–189.

Loftus

G.R.

Masson

M.E.J.

(1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.

Moscovitch

Winocur

Behrmann

(1997). What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 555–604.

Parks

T.E.

Coss

R.G.

Coss

C.S.

(1985). Thatcher and the Cheshire cat: Context and the processing of facial features. Perception, 14, 747–754.

Rakover

S.S.

Teucher

(1997). Facial inversion effects: Parts and whole relationships. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 752–761.

Rhodes

Brake

Atkinson

A.P.

(1993). What's lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47, 25–57.

10.

Schneider

(1988). Micro Experimental Psychology: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 206–217.

11.

Searcy

J.H.

Bartlett

J.C.

(1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 904–915.

12.

Thompson

(1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483–484.

13.

Valentine

(1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471–491.

14.

Valentine

(1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 161–204.

15.

Valentine

Bruce

(1988). Mental rotation of faces. Memory & Cognition, 16, 556–566.

Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References