Behavioral Inversion Effect Research Articles

Twos in human visual perception

Human vision serves the social function of detecting and discriminating with high efficiency conspecifics and other animals. The social world is made of social entities as much as the relations between those entities. Recent work demonstrates that vision encodes visuo-spatial relations between bodies with the same efficiency and high specialization of face/body perception. Specifically, perception of face-to-face (vs. non-facing) bodies evokes effects compatible with the most robust markers of face-specificity such as the behavioral inversion effect and increased activity in selective visual areas. Another set of results suggests that face-to-face bodies are processed as a grouped unit, analogously to facial features in a face. The facing dyad in the visual cortex may be the earliest rudimentary representation of social interaction.

Inversion Effects in Face-selective Cortex with Combinations of Face Parts

The face inversion effect has been used as a basis for claims about the specialization of face-related perceptual and neural processes. One of these claims is that the fusiform face area (FFA) is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. However, the studies on which these claims were based almost exclusively used stimulus manipulations of whole faces. Here, we tested inversion effects using single, discrete features and combinations of multiple discrete features, in addition to whole faces, using both behavioral and fMRI measurements. In agreement with previous studies, we found behavioral inversion effects with whole faces and no inversion effects with a single eye stimulus or the two eyes in combination. However, we also found behavioral inversion effects with feature combination stimuli that included features in the top and bottom halves (eyes-mouth and eyes-nose-mouth). Activation in the FFA showed an inversion effect for the whole-face stimulus only, which did not match the behavioral pattern. Instead, a pattern of activation consistent with the behavior was found in the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, which is a component of the extended face-preferring network. The results appear inconsistent with claims that the FFA is the site of face-specific feature-based and/or configural/holistic processes that are responsible for producing the face inversion effect. They are more consistent with claims that the FFA shows a stimulus preference for whole upright faces.

Frontal contributions to face processing differences in autism: Evidence from fMRI of inverted face processing

Functional neuroimaging studies of face processing deficits in autism have typically focused on visual processing regions, such as the fusiform face area (FFA), which have shown reduced activity in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), though inconsistently. We recently reported reduced activity in the inferior frontal region in ASD, implicating impaired mirror-neuron systems during face processing. In the present study, we used fMRI during a face processing task in which subjects had to match faces presented in the upright versus inverted position. Typically developing (TD) children showed a classic behavioral inversion effect, increased reaction time for inverted faces, while this effect was significantly reduced in ASD subjects. The fMRI data showed similar responses in the fusiform face area for ASD and TD children, with both groups demonstrating increased activation for inverted faces. However, the groups did differ in several brain regions implicated in social cognition, particularly prefrontal cortex and amygdala. These data suggest that the behavioral differences in processing upright versus inverted faces for TD children are related not to visual information processing but to the social significance of the stimuli. Our results are consistent with other recent studies implicating frontal and limbic dysfunction during face processing in autism.

Face Perception

Evidence that face perception is mediated by special cognitive and neural mechanisms comes from fMRI studies of the fusiform face area (FFA) and behavioral studies of the face inversion effect. Here, we used these two methods to ask whether face perception mechanisms are stimulus specific, process specific, or both. Subjects discriminated pairs of upright or inverted faces or house stimuli that differed in either the spatial distance among parts (configuration) or the shape of the parts. The FFA showed a much higher response to faces than to houses, but no preference for the configuration task over the part task. Similarly, the behavioral inversion effect was as large in the part task as the configuration task for faces, but absent in both part and configuration tasks for houses. These findings indicate that face perception mechanisms are not process specific for parts or configuration but are domain specific for face stimuli per se.