The orientation selectivity of face identification.
Recent work demonstrates that human face identification is most efficient when based on horizontal, rather than vertical, image structure. Because it is unclear how this specialization for upright (compared to inverted) face processing emerges in the visual system, the present study aimed to systematically characterize the orientation sensitivity profile for face identification. With upright faces, identification performance in a delayed match-to-sample task was highest for horizontally filtered images and declined sharply with oblique and vertically filtered images. Performance was well described by a Gaussian function with a bandwidth around 25°. Face inversion reshaped this sensitivity profile dramatically, with a downward shift of the entire tuning curve as well as a reduction in the amplitude of the horizontal peak and a doubling in bandwidth. The use of naturalistic outer contours (vs. a common outline mask) was also found to reshape this sensitivity profile by increasing sensitivity to oblique information in the near-horizontal range. Altogether, although face identification is sharply tuned to horizontal angles, both inversion and outline masking can profoundly reshape this orientation sensitivity profile. This combination of image- and observer-driven effects provides an insight into the functional relationship between orientation-selective processes within primary and high-level stages of the human brain.
Research Institute for Psychological Science, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.|Institute of Neuroscience, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.|Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Valerie
V
Goffaux
Experimental Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom.
John A
JA
Greenwood
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 16;6:21189
26879148
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):995-1002
17683242
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Mar;5(3):e1000329
19325870
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 23;10(9):e0138812
26398215
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Oct;34(5):1129-35
18823200
Perception. 1987;16(6):747-59
3454432
Neuropsychologia. 2016 Jan 29;81:1-11
26683383
Front Psychol. 2010 Sep 28;1:143
21833212
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Oct;16(5):778-97
19815781
Front Psychol. 2013 Feb 25;4:74
23444233
Vision Res. 2012 Jul 1;64:17-22
22613193
Spat Vis. 1994;8(4):393-413
7772547
Vision Res. 2000;40(19):2621-44
10958913
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1993 May;46(2):225-45
8316637
J Vis. 2009 Apr 03;9(4):2.1-10
19757911
Cognition. 2007 May;103(2):331-6
16842769
Network. 2003 Aug;14(3):501-26
12938769
Exp Brain Res. 1974 Feb 28;19(4):433-46
4827868
Psychol Aging. 2011 Mar;26(1):71-9
20973603
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 May;128(1):119-26
18166166
Perception. 1979;8(4):431-9
503774
Nature. 1996 Dec 5;384(6608):404
8945457
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Jul;76(5):1381-92
24664854
J Neurosci. 2002 Jul 1;22(13):5639-51
12097515
J Exp Child Psychol. 2015 Dec;140:171-83
26247810
J Vis. 2011 Sep 07;11(10):
21900371
Nature. 1970 Oct 3;228(5266):37-9
5456209
J Vis. 2014 Feb 07;14(2):
24511144
J Physiol. 1962 Jan;160:106-54
14449617
Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):583-92
9337578
Perception. 2015;44(5):511-28
26422900
J Physiol. 1968 Mar;195(1):215-43
4966457
Cognition. 1993 Apr;47(1):25-57
8482070
J Neuropsychol. 2009 Mar;3(Pt 1):45-67
19338716
Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Sep 7;267(1454):1705-10
12233765
Cortex. 2015 Nov;72:115-123
25998751
J Neurophysiol. 1976 Nov;39(6):1320-33
825622
Perception. 1998;27(8):889-935
10209632
Perception. 2001;30(6):755-64
11464563
J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):12978-95
20881116
Dev Psychobiol. 2016 May;58(4):536-42
26857944
Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):482-98
9697428
J Vis. 2004 Dec 10;4(12):1044-60
15669910
Cogn Psychol. 1993 Jul;25(3):281-316
8354050
Vision Res. 1997 Oct;37(20):2915-30
9415370
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Feb;31(1):137-49
10495845
Perception. 1985;14(6):737-46
3837875