Gender in facial representations: a contrast-based study of adaptation within and between the sexes.
Face aftereffects are proving to be an effective means of examining the properties of face-specific processes in the human visual system. We examined the role of gender in the neural representation of faces using a contrast-based adaptation method. If faces of different genders share the same representational face space, then adaptation to a face of one gender should affect both same- and different-gender faces. Further, if these aftereffects differ in magnitude, this may indicate distinct gender-related factors in the organization of this face space. To control for a potential confound between physical similarity and gender, we used a Bayesian ideal observer and human discrimination data to construct a stimulus set in which pairs of different-gender faces were equally dissimilar as same-gender pairs. We found that the recognition of both same-gender and different-gender faces was suppressed following a brief exposure of 100 ms. Moreover, recognition was more suppressed for test faces of a different-gender than those of the same-gender as the adaptor, despite the equivalence in physical and psychophysical similarity. Our results suggest that male and female faces likely occupy the same face space, allowing transfer of aftereffects between the genders, but that there are special properties that emerge along gender-defining dimensions of this space.
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. ipor@interchange.ubc.ca
Ipek
I
Oruç
Xiaoyue M
XM
Guo
Jason J S
JJ
Barton
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological / Q000502:physiology; D005145:Face; D005260:Female; D005366:Figural Aftereffect / Q000502:physiology*; D005783:Gender Identity; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D014796:Visual Perception
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19552-7
17164335
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1991 May;43(2):161-204
1866456
Vision Res. 1976;16(7):779-81
960603
Vision Res. 2009 Sep;49(18):2254-60
19540870
Neuroreport. 2009 Aug 26;20(13):1177-82
19597376
Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Mar 1;2(3):111-7
21227087
Percept Psychophys. 1983 Feb;33(2):113-20
6844102
Nature. 2001 May 24;411(6836):473-6
11373679
Vision Res. 1995 Nov;35(21):3053-69
8533342
Cognition. 1992 Sep;44(3):227-40
1424493
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Nature. 2004 Apr 1;428(6982):557-61
15058304
Cognition. 2008 Apr;107(1):353-65
17870064
J Vis. 2008 Jan 04;8(1):1.1-20
18318604
Neuron. 2005 Mar 3;45(5):793-800
15748853
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jan;4(1):89-94
11135650
Psychol Rev. 1971 Mar;78(2):114-21
5547374
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Mar 1;6(3):136-143
11861192
Vision Res. 1986;26(4):661-72
3739240
Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):647-53
10682208
Cognition. 1997 Jun;63(3):271-313
9265872
J Opt Soc Am. 1968 Aug;58(8):1146-50
5668365
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992 May;44(4):671-703
1615169
J Vis. 2008 Mar 14;8(3):11.1-13
18484817
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Feb;34(1):101-12
18248142
Br J Psychol. 1984 May;75 ( Pt 2):221-42
6733396
J Physiol. 1971 Feb;213(1):157-74
5575335
Cognition. 1995 Dec;57(3):217-39
8556842
Science. 1969 Oct 10;166(3902):245-7
5809598
Brain Res. 2007 Jan 5;1127(1):80-9
17109830
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Nov 7;272(1578):2283-7
16191641
Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226
16318594
J Physiol. 1969 Jul;203(1):237-60
5821879
J Opt Soc Am A. 1985 Feb;2(2):147-55
3973752
Vision Res. 2010 Aug 23;50(18):1845-54
20558191