Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

How does one perceive groups of people? It is known that functionally interacting objects (e.g., a glass and a pitcher tilted as if pouring water into it) are perceptually grouped. Here, we showed that processing of multiple human bodies is also influenced by their relative positioning. In a series of categorization experiments, bodies facing each other (seemingly interacting) were recognized more accurately than bodies facing away from each other (noninteracting). Moreover, recognition of facing body dyads (but not nonfacing body dyads) was strongly impaired when those stimuli were inverted, similar to what has been found for individual bodies. This inversion effect demonstrates sensitivity of the visual system to facing body dyads in their common upright configuration and might imply recruitment of configural processing (i.e., processing of the overall body configuration without prior part-by-part analysis). These findings suggest that facing dyads are represented as one structured unit, which may be the intermediate level of representation between multiple-object (body) perception and representation of social actions.

Keywords

face perception object recognition social perception configural processing scene perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

G. A.

(2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 122–131.

Bonatti

Frot

Zangl

Mehler

(2002). The human first hypothesis: Identification of conspecifics and individuation of objects in the young infant. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 388–426.

Brainard

D. H.

(1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

Brandman

Yovel

(2010). The body inversion effect is mediated by face-selective, not body-selective, mechanisms. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 10534–10549.

Cousineau

(2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.

Diamond

Carey

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

Dittrich

W. H.

Troscianko

Lea

S. E.

Morgan

(1996). Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception, 25, 727–738.

Gauthier

Williams

Tarr

M. J.

Tanaka

(1998). Training “Greeble” experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38, 2401–2428.

Gobbini

M. I.

Gors

J. D.

Halchenko

Y. O.

Hughes

H. C.

Cipolli

(2013). Processing of invisible social cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 765–770.

10.

Green

Hummel

J. E.

(2004). Relational perception and cognition: Implications for cognitive architecture and the perceptual-cognitive interface. In Ross

B. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 201–226). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

11.

Green

Hummel

J. E.

(2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1107–1119.

12.

Hafri

Papafragou

Trueswell

J. C.

(2013). Getting the gist of events: Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 880–905.

13.

Kaiser

Stein

Peelen

M. V.

(2014). Object grouping based on real-world regularities facilitates perception by reducing competitive interactions in visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 11217–11222.

14.

Kanwisher

Yovel

(2006). The fusiform face area: A cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361, 2109–2128.

15.

Kim

J. G.

Biederman

(2010). Where do objects become scenes? Cerebral Cortex, 21, 1738–1746.

16.

Kingstone

(2009). Taking a real look at social attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19, 52–56.

17.

Kourtzi

Kanwisher

(2000). Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 48–55.

18.

Langton

S. R. H.

Watt

R. J.

Bruce

(2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 50–59.

19.

Maurer

Le Grand

Mondloch

C. J.

(2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.

20.

Minnebusch

D. A.

Suchan

Daum

(2009). Losing your head: Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of body inversion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 865–874.

21.

New

Cosmides

Tooby

(2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 16598–16603.

22.

Peelen

M. V.

Downing

P. E.

(2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 636–648.

23.

Perrett

D. I.

Emery

N. J.

(1994). Understanding the intentions of others from visual signals: Neurophysiological evidence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 13, 683–694.

24.

Reed

C. L.

Stone

V. E.

Bozova

Tanaka

(2003). The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14, 302–308.

25.

Reed

C. L.

Stone

V. E.

Grubb

J. D.

McGoldrick

J. E.

(2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 73–87.

26.

Riddoch

M. J.

Humphreys

G. W.

Edwards

Baker

Willson

(2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 82–89.

27.

Robbins

R. A.

Coltheart

(2012). The effects of inversion and familiarity on face versus body cues to person recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1098–1104.

28.

Roberts

K. L.

Humphreys

G. W.

(2010). Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. NeuroImage, 52, 1541–1548.

29.

Stein

Sterzer

Peelen

M. V.

(2012). Privileged detection of conspecifics: Evidence from inversion effects during continuous flash suppression. Cognition, 125, 64–79.

30.

Yovel

Pelc

Lubetzky

(2010). It’s all in your head: Why is the body inversion effect abolished for headless bodies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 759–767.

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.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB

The Two-Body Inversion Effect

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material