Previous event-related potential (ERP) research demonstrated four successive ERP components in the repetition priming of human face recognition: P100, N170, N250r, and N400. While these components correspond, respectively, to the four stages proposed by the interactive activation and competition (IAC) model, there has been no emphasis in past research on how internal and external facial features affect repetition priming and the sensitivity of these ERP components to item interval. This study was designed to address these issues. We used faces of celebrities as targets, including completely familiar faces, familiar internal feature faces, and familiar external feature faces. We displayed a target face either immediately following its prime (immediate repetition) or after a delay with interference from a presentation of two other faces (delayed repetition). ERP differences at P100 and N170 were nearly statistically non-significant; familiar faces and familiar external feature faces were associated with reliable ERP signals of N250r and N400 in the immediate repetition condition. For delayed repetition, however, N250r and N400 signals were only preserved for the familiar external feature faces. The differences of these ERP components suggest that, compared with internal facial features, external features of a previously presented face contribute more to brain-based facial repetition priming, particularly during the last two stages of the IAC model.
BartlettJ. C.ShastriK. K.AbdiH.Neville-SmithM. (2009).
Component structure of individual differences in true and false recognition of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
35(5), 1207–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016368
4.
BerryC. J.WardE. V.ShanksD. R. (2017).
Does study duration have opposite effects on recognition and repetition priming?Journal of Memory and Language,
97, 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.004
5.
BurtonA. M.BruceV.JohnstonR. A. (1990).
Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. British Journal of Psychology,
81(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02367.x
6.
CastelloM. V. D. O.WheelerK. G.CipolliC.GobbiniM. I. (2017).
Familiarity facilitates feature-based face processing. PLoS One,
12(6), e0178895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178895
7.
EngstF. M.Martín-LoechesM.SommerW. (2006).
Memory systems for structural and semantic knowledge of faces and buildings. Brain Research,
1124(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.038
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009).
Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
9.
FeuerriegelD.ChurchesO.CoussensS.KeageH. (2018).
Evidence for spatiotemporally distinct effects of image repetition and perceptual expectations as measured by event-related potentials. NeuroImage,
169, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.029
10.
FeuerriegelD.ChurchesO.CoussensS.KeageH. (2019).
Temporal expectations modulate face image repetition suppression of early stimulus evoked event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia,
122, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.11.010
11.
FeuerriegelD.KeageH.RossionB.QuekG. (2018).
Immediate stimulus repetition abolishes stimulus expectation and surprise effects in fast periodic visual oddball designs. Biological Psychology,
138, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.09.002
12.
GuillaumeC.Guillery-GirardB.ChabyL.LebretonK.HuguevilleL.EustacheF.FioriN. (2009).
The time course of repetition effects for familiar faces and objects: An ERP study. Brain Research,
1248, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.10.069
13.
GyulaK.SchweinbergerS. R. (2016).
Repetition suppression—An integrative view. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior,
80, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.022
14.
HashemiA.PachaiM. V.BennettP. J.SekulerA. B. (2019).
The role of horizontal facial structure on the N170 and N250. Vision Research,
157, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.02.006
15.
HerzmannG. (2016).
Increased N250 amplitudes for other-race faces reflect more effortful processing at the individual level. International Journal of Psychophysiology Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology,
105, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.05.001
16.
HuangW.WuX.HuL.WangL.DingY.QuZ. (2017).
Revisiting the earliest electrophysiological correlate of familiar face recognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
120, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.07.001
17.
ItzM. L.SchweinbergerS. R.KaufmannJ. M. (2018).
Familiar face priming: The role of second-order configuration and individual face recognition abilities. Perception,
47(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617742069
18.
JonesT. C.BartlettJ. C. (2009).
When false recognition is out of control: The case of facial conjunctions. Memory & Cognition,
37(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.37.2.143
19.
KaiserD.WaltherC.SchweinbergerS. R.KovacsG. (2013).
Dissociating the neural bases of repetition-priming and adaptation in the human brain for faces. Journal of Neurophysiology,
110(12), 2727–2738. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00277.2013
20.
KaufmannJ. M.SchweinbergerS. R.BurtonA. M. (2009).
N250 ERP correlates of the acquisition of face representations across different images. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
21(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21080
21.
KimH. (2017).
Brain regions that show repetition suppression and enhancement: A meta-analysis of 137 neuroimaging experiments. Human Brain Mapping,
38(4), 1894–1913. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23492
22.
KutasM.FedermeierK. D. (2011).
Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology,
62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
23.
MarioR. P.JulianaC.FraukeN.HertaF.JamilaA. (2019).
Disruption of the prefrontal cortex improves implicit contextual memory-guided attention: Combined behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Cerebral Cortex,
30, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhz067
24.
MartinD.GreerJ. (2011).
Getting to know you: From view-dependent to view-invariant repetition priming for unfamiliar faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006),
64(2), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.541266
25.
Meinhardt-InjacB.PersikeM.MeinhardtG. (2010).
The time course of face matching by internal and external features: Effects of context and inversion. Vision Research,
50(16), 1598–1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.018
26.
MohrS.WangA.EngellA. D. (2018).
Early identity recognition of familiar faces is not dependent on holistic processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
13(10), 1019–1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy079
NieA. (2018).
Facial recall: Feature-conjunction effects in source retrieval versus item recognition. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
125(2), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512517751725
29.
NieA.JiangJ.FuQ. (2014).
Internal versus external features in triggering the brain waveforms for conjunction and feature faces in recognition. Neuroreport,
25(12), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000221
30.
NieA.JiangJ.FuQ.ZhangR. (2015).
The conjunction effect and feature effect in faces are modulated by task type. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
47(5), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00570
31.
NieA.LiM.YeJ. (2016).
Lag length effect on repetition priming of famous and unfamiliar faces: Evidence from N250r and N400. Neuroreport,
27(10), 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000605
32.
NieA.MichaelG.AlexanderK.MatthewW.AndreaD.LynneR. (2014).
ERP profiles for face and word recognition are based on their status in semantic memory not their stimulus category. Brain Research,
1557, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.02.010
33.
NieA.YeJ.LiM. (2016).
The effect of pre-existing memory representations on repetition-related N250r and N400. Science Bulletin,
61(4), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-016-1011-4
34.
NieA.ZhangR.YeJ.WangS.WangY.KeC. (2015).
The influence of attention and matching style of stimuli on repetition priming: An event-related potential study. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology,
21(4), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2015.04.006
35.
NowagkR.PfeiferE. (1996). Unix implementation of the ERP evaluation package. In: Annual report 1996 (pp. 124–126). Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience.
36.
OlivaresE. I.Lage-CastellanosA.BobesM. A.IglesiasJ. (2018).
Source reconstruction of brain potentials using Bayesian model averaging to analyze face intra-domain vs. face-occupation cross-domain processing. Frontiers Integrative Neuroscience,
23, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2018.00012
37.
ÖzkayaŞ. N.YıldırımT. (2018).
Assessment of components and methods used to identify responses and regions of brain related with face recognition and perception. Procedia Computer Science,
131, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.183
38.
PetersJ. C.GoebelR.GoffauxV. (2018).
From coarse to fine interactive feature processing precedes local feature analysis in human face perception. Biological Psychology,
138, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.07.009
39.
PfützeE. M.SommerW.SchweinbergerS. R. (2002).
Age-related slowing in face and name recognition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychology and Aging,
17(1), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.140
RederL. M.VictoriaL. W.ManelisA.OatesJ. M.DutcherJ. M.BatesJ. T.CookS.AizensteinH. J.QuinlanJ.GyulaiF. (2013).
Why it’s easier to remember seeing a face we already know than one we don’t: Pre-existing memory representations facilitate memory formation. Psychological Science,
24(3), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457396
42.
RostalskiS. M.AmadoC.KovacsG. (2019).
Repetition suppression for noisy and intact faces in the occipito-temporal cortex. Frontiers in Psychology,
10, 1348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01348
SchweinbergerS. R.NeumannM. F. (2016).
Repetition effects in human ERPs to faces. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior,
80, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.001
45.
ValtC.StürmerB.SommerW.BoehmS. (2017).
Early response activation in repetition priming: An LRP study. Experimental Brain Research,
235(10), 2927–2934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5017-1
46.
VinkenK.BeeckH.VogelsG. (2018).
Face repetition probability does not affect repetition suppression in macaque inferotemporal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience,
38(34), 7492–7504. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0462-18.2018
47.
WakuiE.ThomaV.de FockertJ. W. (2016).
View-sensitive ERP repetition effects indicate automatic holistic processing of spatially unattended objects. Neuropsychologia,
89, 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.07.024
48.
WangY.XuQ.LiaoS.JiaD. (2017).
Unfamiliar faces in recognition memory: Spaced learning enhances subsequent recognition memory by reducing repetition priming. Neuroreport,28(14), 872–878. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000847
49.
WieseH.KomesJ.TüttenbergS.LeidingerJ.SchweinbergerS. R. (2017).
Age-related differences in face recognition: Neural correlates of repetition and semantic priming in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
43(8), 1254–1273. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000380
50.
WieseH.WolffN.SteffensM. C.SchweinbergerS. R. (2013).
How experience shapes memory for faces: An event-related potential study on the own-age bias. Biological Psychology,
94(2), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.07.001
51.
WilderR. J.DaviesA. G.EmbickD. (2019).
Differences between morphological and repetition priming in auditory lexical decision: Implications for decompositional models. Cortex,
116, 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.007
52.
YeJ.NieA.LiuS. (2019).
How do word frequency and memory task influence directed forgetting: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology,
146, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.10.005
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
