Seeing faces as objects: no face inversion effect with geometrical discrimination.
Inversion dramatically impairs face perception, recognition, and discrimination. Yet it does not interfere with the ability to make precise estimates of facial feature distances. To investigate this discontinuity between facial feature distance estimation and general perception and recognition, we assessed the effect of inversion on the discrimination of differences in facial compression and elongation or expansion using geometrically distorted faces. The results clearly showed that geometrical face discrimination is not subject to the traditional face inversion effect and did not show a benefit for natural faces. Although discrimination thresholds were not affected by inversion, response times to the distance judgments were faster with inversion, especially when the inverted faces contained natural configurations. Based on these counterintuitive results, we suggest that participants used analytical processing to do the discrimination task. Moreover, we suggest that the depth with which a face is holistically encoded depends on the nature of the task, face orientation, and similarity between a face and the prototypical face template.
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, 6207 Moore Hall, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. pamela.m.pallett@dartmouth.edu
Pamela M
PM
Pallett
Donald I A
DI
MacLeod
D004056:Differential Threshold; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D004215:Distance Perception; D005145:Face; D006801:Humans; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010469:Perceptual Distortion; D011601:Psychophysics; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012858:Size Perception
Vision Res. 1995 Jul;35(14):2089-93
7660612
Cognition. 2002 Jul;84(3):321-41
12044738
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Oct;8(10):1386-90
16136037
Nature. 2001 Apr 19;410(6831):890
11309606
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Jun;27(3):573-99
11424647
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Sep;28(5):872-92
12219796
Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):647-53
10682208
Exp Psychol. 2011;58(1):4-18
20382628
Psychol Sci. 2003 Nov;14(6):558-66
14629686
J Vis. 2007 Jun 08;7(8):3
17685810
Cogn Psychol. 1993 Jul;25(3):281-316
8354050
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Mar;34(2):328-42
18315409
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986 Jun;115(2):107-17
2940312
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jan;4(1):89-94
11135650
Vision Res. 1992 Dec;32(12):2235-50
1288001
Vision Res. 2006 Sep;46(18):2977-87
16647736
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):995-1002
17683242
Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):583-92
9337578
Perception. 2004;33(10):1221-31
15693667
Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;21(1):38-43
20424020
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):1023-39
16846295
Perception. 1999;28(3):341-59
10615472
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 May;53(2):513-36
10881616
Psychol Sci. 2000 Sep;11(5):379-85
11228908
Perception. 1987;16(6):747-59
3454432
Perception. 2000;29(2):159-70
10820599
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2002 Mar;1(1):63-75
17715586
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Dec;129(4):559-74
11142869
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1356-68
18980400
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):255-260
12039607
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Aug;22(4):904-15
8756958
Br J Psychol. 1984 May;75 ( Pt 2):221-42
6733396
Perception. 1990;19(4):531-43
2096371
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
11800458
Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):482-98
9697428
Neuron. 2004 Dec 2;44(5):889-98
15572118
Perception. 1980;9(4):483-4
6999452
Psychol Sci. 2006 Jan;17(1):12-6
16371138
Br J Psychol. 2001 Aug;92(Pt 3):527-49
11534743
Perception. 2003;32(9):1109-16
14651323
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Perception. 2000;29(8):885-91
11145081
Vision Res. 2003 Jun;43(14):1501-5
12782063
J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jul;17(7):1130-49
16102241
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1993 May;46(2):225-45
8316637
Br J Psychol. 1988 Nov;79 ( Pt 4):471-91
3061544