Abstract
We investigated whether infants experience the hollow-face illusion using a screen-based presentation of a rotating hollow mask. In experiment 1 we examined preferential looking between rotating convex and concave faces. Adults looked more at the concave—illusory convex—face which appears to counter rotate. Infants of 7- to 8-month-old infants preferred the convex face, and 5- to 6-month-olds showed no preference. While older infants discriminate, their preference differed from that of adults possibly because they don't experience the illusion or counter rotation. In experiment 2 we tested preference in 7- to 8-month-olds for angled convex and concave static faces both before and after habituation to the stimuli shown in experiment 1. The infants showed a novelty preference for the static shape opposite to the habituation stimulus, together with a general preference for the static convex face. This shows that they discriminate between convex and concave faces and that habituation to either transfers across a change in view. Seven- to eight-month-olds have been shown to discriminate direction of rigid rotation on the basis of perspective changes. Our results suggest that this, perhaps together with a weaker bias to perceive faces as convex, allows these infants to see the screen-based hollow face as hollow even though adults perceive it as convex.
Highlights
The hollow-face illusion is the phenomenon of a concave face or mask being perceived as a normal, convex face (Gregory 1970)
With the stimuli used, when the concave face is seen as convex, it appears to rotate in the opposite direction of its background (Gregory 1970)
As such movement is unusual, we expected that if the hollow-face illusion was perceived by the infants as it is by adults, both groups would look at the concave face for longer than the convex face
Summary
The hollow-face illusion is the phenomenon of a concave face or mask being perceived as a normal, convex face (Gregory 1970). We consistently perceive the incorrect convex alternative even when potentially unambiguous cues to depth, including stereoscopic disparities and parallax resulting from self-motion, are available and we are fully aware of the true shape of the mask. In adults this has been attributed to our past experience with, and knowledge of, faces as convex three-dimensional surfaces with noses that stick out rather than in (Gregory 1997) and a general convexity bias for any objects Our aim here is to ask whether infants, with considerably less experience of the world, misperceive a concave mask as a convex face
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
