In recent years, there has been growing interest in how we perceive dyadic interactions between people. It has been proposed that pairs of individuals shown upright and face-to-face recruit a form of configural processing, similar to that engaged by upright faces. This processing is thought to aid the detection and interpretation of social interactions. Dyadic arrangements shown back-to-back or upside-down are not thought to engage configural dyad processing. One of the key advantages conveyed by configural face processing is greater sensitivity to the spatial relationships between facial features when faces are viewed upright, than when viewed upside-down. If upright dyads arranged face-to-face engage similar configural processing that is not engaged by non-facing or inverted dyads, participants should therefore exhibit disproportionate sensitivity to the spatial relations between the constituent actors under these conditions. In four well-powered experiments, we find no evidence for this prediction: Participants exhibited similar levels of sensitivity to changes in interpersonal distance regardless of whether dyads were shown upright or inverted, face-to-face, or back-to-back. In contrast, we observe clear evidence that upright presentation affords greater sensitivity to interfeature spatial relationships (interocular distance) when viewing faces. These results suggest that any configural processing engaged by upright facing dyads likely differs qualitatively from that engaged by upright faces.
AbassiE.PapeoL. (2020). The representation of two-body shapes in the human visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 40(4), 852–863.
2.
AbassiE.PapeoL. (2022). Behavioral and neural markers of visual configural processing in social scene perception. NeuroImage, 260, Article e119506.
3.
AbramsonL.PetrankerR.MaromI.AviezerH. (2021). Social interaction context shapes emotion recognition through body language, not facial expressions. Emotion, 21(3), 557–568.
4.
AdolphsR. (2002). Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: Psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1(1), 21–62.
5.
AlgomD. (2021). The Weber–Fechner law: A misnomer that persists but that should go away. Psychological Review, 128(4), 757–765.
6.
AnstisS. (2005). Last but not least. Perception, 34(2), 237–240.
7.
Anwyl-IrvineA. L.MassonniéJ.FlittonA.KirkhamN.EvershedJ. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 388–407.
8.
AviezerH.HassinR. R.RyanJ.GradyC.SusskindJ.AndersonA.. . .BentinS. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19(7), 724–732.
9.
BessenoffG. R.ShermanJ. W. (2000). Automatic and controlled components of prejudice toward fat people: Evaluation versus stereotype activation. Social Cognition, 18(4), 329–353.
10.
BlakeR.ShiffrarM. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47–73.
11.
BunceC.GehduB. K.PressC.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2024). Autistic adults exhibit typical sensitivity to changes in interpersonal distance. Autism Research, 17, 1464–1474.
12.
BunceC.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2021). The perception of interpersonal distance is distorted by the Muller-Lyer illusion. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 494.
13.
BurtonA. M.SchweinbergerS. R.JenkinsR.KaufmannJ. M. (2015). Arguments against a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 482–496.
14.
BuseyT. A.VanderkolkJ. R. (2005). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45(4), 431–448.
15.
CookR.BirdG.CatmurC.PressC.HeyesC. (2014). Mirror neurons: From origin to function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(2), 177–192.
16.
DotschR.WigboldusD. H. J. (2008). Virtual prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1194–1198.
17.
DuchaineB.YovelG. (2015). A revised neural framework for face processing. Annual Review of Vision Science, 1, 393–416.
18.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. D.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception?Psychological Review, 105(3), 482–498.
19.
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.
20.
FreireA.LeeK.SymonsL. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29(2), 159–170.
21.
FrithC. (2009). Role of facial expressions in social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3453–3458.
22.
GauthierI.TarrM. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37, 1673–1681.
23.
GoffauxV.RossionB. (2007). Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 995–1002.
24.
GrayK. L. H.BarberL.MurphyJ.CookR. (2017). Social interaction contexts bias the perceived expressions of interactants. Emotion, 17(4), 567–571.
25.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley.
26.
HallE. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003–1026.
27.
HallE. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.
28.
HsiaoJ. H.CottrellG. W. (2009). Not all visual expertise is holistic, but it may be leftist: The case of Chinese character recognition. Psychological Science, 20(4), 455–463.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
31.
JohnstonP.BakerD. H.StoneR.KaufmanJ. (2014). Thatcher’s Britain: A new take on an old illusion. Perception, 43(12), 1400–1403.
32.
LangtonS. R.BruceV. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 541–567.
33.
LederH.CandrianG.HuberO.BruceV. (2001). Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception, 30(1), 73–83.
34.
Le GrandR.MondlochC. J.MaurerD.BrentH. P. (2001). Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410(6831), 890–890.
35.
LewisM. B.JohnstonR. A. (1997). The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption. Perception, 26(2), 225–227.
36.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260.
37.
McCallC. (2015). Mapping social interactions: The science of proxemics. In WöhrM.KrachS. (Eds.), Social behavior from rodents to humans (pp. 295–308). Springer.
38.
McCallC.BlascovichJ.YoungA.PerskyS. (2009). Proxemic behaviors as predictors of aggression towards Black (but not White) males in an immersive virtual environment. Social Influence, 4(2), 138–154.
39.
McCallC.SingerT. (2015). Facing off with unfair others: Introducing proxemic imaging as an implicit measure of approach and avoidance during social interaction. PLOS ONE, 10(2), Article e0117532.
40.
McKoneE.YovelG. (2009). Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate the perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 778–797.
41.
MondlochC. J.Le GrandR.MaurerD. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31(5), 553–566.
MurphyJ.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2020). Inverted faces benefit from whole-face processing. Cognition, 194(104105), 1–9.
44.
NavonD. (2003). What does a compound letter tell the psychologist’s mind?Acta Psychologica, 114(3), 273–309.
45.
PaparellaI.PapeoL. (2022). Chunking by social relationship in working memory. Visual Cognition, 30(5), 354–370.
46.
PapeoL. (2020). Twos in human visual perception. Cortex, 132, 473–478.
47.
PapeoL.GoupilN.Soto-FaracoS. (2019). Visual search for people among people. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1483–1496.
48.
PapeoL.SteinT.Soto-FaracoS. (2017). The two-body inversion effect. Psychological Science, 28(3), 369–379.
49.
Pardo-VazquezJ. L.Castiñeiras-de SaaJ. R.ValenteM.DamiãoI.CostaT.VicenteM. I.. . .RenartA. (2019). The mechanistic foundation of Weber’s law. Nature Neuroscience, 22(9), 1493–1502.
50.
PeelenM. V.DowningP. E. (2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(8), 636–648.
51.
PiepersD. W.RobbinsR. A. (2013). A review and clarification of the terms “holistic,” “configural,” and “relational” in the face perception literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 559.
52.
PrinsN.KingdomF. A. A. (2009). Palamedes: Matlab routines for analyzing psychophysical data. http://www.palamedestoolbox.org
53.
QuadfliegS.KoldewynK. (2017). The neuroscience of people watching: How the human brain makes sense of other people’s encounters. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 166–182.
54.
ReedC. L.StoneV. E.GrubbJ. D.McGoldrickJ. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 73–87.
55.
RossionB. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 274–289.
56.
SlaughterV.StoneV. E.ReedC. (2004). Perception of faces and bodies: Similar or different?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(6), 219–223.
57.
SusiloT.RezlescuC.DuchaineB. (2013). The composite effect for inverted faces is reliable at large sample sizes and requires the basic face configuration. Journal of Vision, 13(13), 1–14.
58.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 225–245.
59.
TsaoD. Y.LivingstoneM. S. (2008). Mechanisms of face perception. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 411–437.
60.
VestnerT.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2020). Why are social interactions found quickly in visual search tasks?Cognition, 200, 104270.
61.
VestnerT.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2021). Visual search for facing and non-facing people: The effect of actor inversion. Cognition, 208, 104550.
62.
VestnerT.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2022). Sensitivity to orientation is not unique to social attention cueing. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article e5059.
63.
VestnerT.OverH.GrayK. L. H.CookR. (2021). Objects that direct spatial attention produce the search advantage for facing dyads. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(1), 161–171.
64.
VestnerT.TipperS. P.HartleyT.OverH.RueschemeyerS. A. (2019). Bound together: Social binding leads to faster processing, spatial distortion, and enhanced memory of interacting partners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1251–1268.
65.
VogelsangM. D.PalmeriT. J.BuseyT. A. (2017). Holistic processing of fingerprints by expert forensic examiners. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, e15.
66.
WixtedJ. T.StretchV. (2000). The case against a criterion-shift account of false memory. Psychological Review, 107(2), 368–376.
67.
WongA. C. N.PalmeriT. J.GauthierI. (2009). Conditions for facelike expertise with objects: Becoming a Ziggerin expert—but which type?Psychological Science, 20(9), 1108–1117.
68.
WongY. K.GauthierI. (2010). Holistic processing of musical notation: Dissociating failures of selective attention in experts and novices. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 541–551.
69.
WongY. K.TwedtE.SheinbergD.GauthierI. (2010). Does Thompson’s Thatcher effect reflect a face-specific mechanism?Perception, 39(8), 1125–1141.
70.
WorthingtonM. E. (1974). Personal space as a function of the stigma effect. Environment & Behavior, 6, 289–294.
71.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 42(11), 1166–1178.
72.
YovelG.KanwisherN. (2008). The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 933–939.
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.
