Processing Of Facial Features Research Articles

Evidence for different visual processing strategy for non-face stimuli in developmental prosopagnosia

ABSTRACT We assembled a test battery to investigate developmental prosopagnosia (DP), a neurodevelopmental syndrome resulting in severe face recognition difficulties. To screen for general cognitive deficits that could explain poor face test performance, participants completed a fluid reasoning task using abstract shapes. This initial screening showed that DPs (n = 21) were more accurate than neurotypical controls (n = 90) but significantly slower, suggesting speed-accuracy trade-off. To address this, we calculated the Balanced Integration Score and found no group differences, highlighting that DPs clearly adopted a different strategy from controls. DPs’ longer response times (RT) on face tasks vs controls are commonly interpreted as evidence of impairment and of lengthy, atypical featural face processing. Our data suggest this interpretation may be unreliable since clear RT differences were also observed in two non-face tasks where DPs showed no accuracy impairment. Instead, slower RTs appear to reflect a strategy shift in DPs.

The effect of face orientation on audiovisual speech integration in infancy: An electrophysiological study.

Humans pay special attention to faces and speech from birth, but the interplay of developmental processes leading to specialization is poorly understood. We investigated the effects of face orientation on audiovisual (AV) speech perception in two age groups of infants (younger: 5- to 6.5-month-olds; older: 9- to 10.5-month-olds) and adults. We recorded event-related potentials (ERP)in response to videos of upright and inverted faces producing /ba/ articulation dubbed with auditory syllables that were either matching /ba/ or mismatching /ga/ the mouth movement. We observed an increase in the amplitude of audiovisual mismatch response (AVMMR) to incongruent visual /ba/-auditory /ga/ syllable in comparison to other stimuli in younger infants, while the older group of infants did not show a similar response.AV mismatch response to inverted visual /ba/-auditory /ga/ stimulus relative to congruent stimuli was also detected in the right frontal areas in the younger group and the left and right frontal areas in adults. We show that face configuration affects the neural response to AV mismatch differently across all age groups. The novel finding of the AVMMR in response to inverted incongruent AV speech may potentially imply the featural face processing in younger infants and adults when processing inverted faces articulating incongruent speech. The lack of visible differential responses to upright and inverted incongruent stimuli obtained in the older group of infants suggests a likely functional cortical reorganization in the processing of AV speech.

Configural and featural face processing influence the attentional capture of face race: Evidence from N2pc

Configural and featural face processing influence the attentional capture of face race: Evidence from N2pc

The Time Sequence of Face Spatial Frequency Differs During Working Memory Encoding and Retrieval Stages.

Previous studies have found that P1 and P2 components were more sensitive to configural and featural face processing, respectively, when attentional resources were sufficient, suggesting that face processing follows a coarse-to-fine sequence. However, the role of working memory (WM) load in the time course of configural and featural face processing is poorly understood, especially whether it differs during encoding and retrieval stages. This study employed a delayed recognition task with varying WM load and face spatial frequency (SF). Our behavioral and ERP results showed that WM load modulated face SF processing. Specifically, for the encoding stage, P1 and P2 were more sensitive to broadband SF (BSF) faces, while N170 was more sensitive to low SF (LSF) and BSF faces. For the retrieval stage, P1 on the right hemisphere was more sensitive to BSF faces relative to HSF faces, N170 was more sensitive to LSF faces than HSF faces, especially under the load 1 condition, while P2 was more sensitive to high SF (HSF) faces than HSF faces, especially under load 3 condition. These results indicate that faces are perceived less finely during the encoding stage, whereas face perception follows a coarse-to-fine sequence during the retrieval stage, which is influenced by WM load. The coarse and fine information were processed especially under the low and high load conditions, respectively.

Intranasal oxytocin alters attention to emotional facial expressions, particularly for males and those with depressive symptoms

Intranasal oxytocin (OT) can enhance emotion recognition, perhaps by promoting increased attention to social cues. Some studies indicate that individuals with difficulties processing social information, including those with psychopathology, show more pronounced effects in response to OT. As such, there is interest in the potential therapeutic use of OT in populations with deficits in social cognition. The present study examined the effects of intranasal OT on the processing of facial features and selective attention to emotional facial expressions, as well as whether individual differences in depressive symptom severity predict sensitivity to intranasal OT. In a double-blind placebo-controlled within-subject design, eye tracking was used to measure attention to facial features in an emotional expression appraisal task, and attention to emotional expressions in a free-viewing task with a quadrant of multiple faces. OT facilitated the processing of positive cues, enhancing the maintenance of attention to the mouth region of happy faces and to happy faces within a quadrant, with similar effect sizes, despite the latter effect not being statistically significant. Further, persons with depressive symptoms, and particularly males, were sensitive to OT’s effects. For males only, OT, relative to placebo, increased attentional focus to the mouth region of all faces. Individuals with depressive symptoms showed less attentional focus on angry (males only) and sad facial expressions, and more attention to happy faces (particularly for males). Results indicate increased sensitivity to OT in males and persons at risk for depression, with OT administration promoting a positive bias in selective attention to social stimuli.

Gaze direction and face orientation modulate perceptual sensitivity to faces under interocular suppression

Faces convey information essential for social interaction. Their importance has prompted suggestions that some facial features may be processed unconsciously. Although some studies have provided empirical support for this idea, it remains unclear whether these findings were due to perceptual processing or to post-perceptual decisional factors. Evidence for unconscious processing of facial features has predominantly come from the Breaking Continuous Flash Suppression (b-CFS) paradigm, which measures the time it takes different stimuli to overcome interocular suppression. For example, previous studies have found that upright faces are reported faster than inverted faces, and direct-gaze faces are reported faster than averted-gaze faces. However, this procedure suffers from important problems: observers can decide how much information they receive before committing to a report, so their detection responses may be influenced by differences in decision criteria and by stimulus identification. Here, we developed a new procedure that uses predefined exposure durations, enabling independent measurement of perceptual sensitivity and decision criteria. We found higher detection sensitivity to both upright and direct-gaze (compared to inverted and averted-gaze) faces, with no effects on decisional factors. For identification, we found both greater sensitivity and more liberal criteria for upright faces. Our findings demonstrate that face orientation and gaze direction influence perceptual sensitivity, indicating that these facial features may be processed unconsciously.

Configural but Not Featural Face Information Is Associated With Automatic Processing.

Configural face processing precedes featural face processing under the face-attended condition, but their temporal sequence in the absence of attention is unclear. The present study investigated this issue by recording visual mismatch negativity (vMMN), which indicates the automatic processing of visual information under unattended conditions. Participants performed a central cross size change detection task, in which random sequences of faces were presented peripherally, in an oddball paradigm. In Experiment 1, configural and featural faces (deviant stimuli) were presented infrequently among original faces (standard stimuli). In Experiment 2, configural faces were presented infrequently among featural faces, or vice versa. The occipital-temporal vMMN emerged in the 200–360 ms latency range for configural, but not featural, face information. More specifically, configural face information elicited a substantial vMMN component in the 200–360 ms range in Experiment 1. This result was replicated in the 320–360 ms range in Experiment 2, especially in the right hemisphere. These results suggest that configural, but not featural, face information is associated with automatic processing and provides new electrophysiological evidence for the different mechanisms underlying configural and featural face processing under unattended conditions.

Cultural Differences in the Time Course of Configural and Featural Processing for Own-race Faces

Previous research suggests that East Asians pay more attention than Caucasian Westerners to configural information in faces, while the latter group pays more attention to featural information. However, it is unclear whether this cultural variation in attention produces a different time course of the processing bias for configural and featural information. This was examined using event-related potentials in a spatial attention paradigm. Chinese and Westerners were instructed to attend to the locations of two face images or houses. Although the race-related difference was absent in behavioral performance and N170 component, Chinese participants exhibited a configural processing bias on P1 component in the case of both own- and other-race faces and a featural processing bias on P2 component for own-race faces. In contrast, Westerners exhibited a featural processing bias for own-race faces and a configural processing bias for other-race faces on P1 component, whereas a configural processing bias was observed on P2 component for both own- and other-race faces. These results demonstrate that there are important differences between East Asians and Westerners in their relative preferences for configural versus featural processing of own-race faces, but not other-race faces. The relative roles of configural and featural information processing for faces are thus dependent on both who is looking (the culture or race of the observer) and what they are looking at (the race of the face): Easterners enjoy an early global/configural processing bias and a late local/featural processing bias for own-race faces, while Westerners benefit from an early local/featural processing bias and a late global/configural processing bias for own-race faces; both of the groups have an early and late global/configural processing bias for other-race faces.

Supplemental Material for The Impact on Emotion Classification Performance and Gaze Behavior of Foveal Versus Extrafoveal Processing of Facial Features

Supplemental Material for The Impact on Emotion Classification Performance and Gaze Behavior of Foveal Versus Extrafoveal Processing of Facial Features

Composite faces are not (necessarily) processed coactively: A test using systems factorial technology and logical-rule models.

Upright faces are thought to be processed more holistically than inverted faces. In the widely used composite face paradigm, holistic processing is inferred from interference in recognition performance from a to-be-ignored face half for upright and aligned faces compared with inverted or misaligned faces. We sought to characterize the nature of holistic processing in composite faces in computational terms. We use logical-rule models (Fifić, Little, & Nosofsky, 2010) and Systems Factorial Technology (Townsend & Nozawa, 1995) to examine whether composite faces are processed through pooling top and bottom face halves into a single processing channel-coactive processing-which is one common mechanistic definition of holistic processing. By specifically operationalizing holistic processing as the pooling of features into a single decision process in our task, we are able to distinguish it from other processing models that may underlie composite face processing. For instance, a failure of selective attention might result even when top and bottom components of composite faces are processed in serial or in parallel without processing the entire face coactively. Our results show that performance is best explained by a mixture of serial and parallel processing architectures across all 4 upright and inverted, aligned and misaligned face conditions. The results indicate multichannel, featural processing of composite faces in a manner inconsistent with the notion of coactivity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Spatial attention modulates the temporal sequence of hemispheric asymmetry in configural and featural face processing

Face recognition requires both configural and featural processing. Configural face processing is more dependent on the right hemisphere, whereas featural face processing is more dependent on the left hemisphere. The ERP components sensitive to configural and featural face processing were found on P1 and P2, respectively. However, whether lateralized processing is independent of or interacts with the temporal sequence of configural and featural face processing is unclear. To prevent potentially confounding physical stimuli differences between configural and featural face processing from affecting the ERP components, a spatial attention paradigm was employed in which the participants were instructed to attend to the face location (the attended face condition) or the house location (the unattended face condition). The interaction effect of attention, face processing type and hemisphere on the P1 and P2 components indicates that the different mechanisms of configural and featural face processing are a function of spatial attention. Specifically, under the attended face condition, the posterior P1 (approximately 100 ms) for configural face processing was larger than that for featural face processing in the right hemisphere, whereas the P2 (approximately 220 ms) for featural face processing was larger than that for configural face processing in the left hemisphere. In contrast, under the unattended face condition, the P1 for featural face processing was larger than that for configural face processing in the left hemisphere, whereas the P2 for configural face processing was larger than that for featural face processing in the right hemisphere. Therefore, configural and featural processing involve different neural mechanisms, and more importantly, the time course of hemispheric asymmetry in configural and featural face processing is differentially modulated by spatial attention.

Aging Strikes the Self-Face Advantage in Featural Processing

Background/Study Context: The face is the most distinctive physical feature of a person. Previous work has shown that one’s own face (self-face) is advantageous in perception. Here the authors investigate how aging influences the configural and featural processing of self-face.Methods: Older and young adults searched for their own faces and faces of strangers (Experiment 1) or acquaintances (Experiment 2) among distractor faces. The configural and featural processing of faces was assessed with face inversion in Experiment 1 and with changes in point of view in Experiment 2.Results: Experiment 1 revealed a robust self-face advantage for upright faces in both young and older adults. A similar advantage was observed for inverted faces in young but not in older adults. Experiment 2 revealed a self-face advantage in older adults regardless of the point of view; in young adults, however, the self-face advantage only emerged for frontal view faces.Conclusion: The present study shows that older adults have a self-face advantage in configural but not in featural processing. The authors suggest that the impairment in featural processing in older adults is likely the result of age-related changes in perceptual experience.

Interfacing With Faces: Perceptual Humanization and Dehumanization

This article links the visual perception of faces and social behavior. We argue that the ways in which people visually encode others’ faces—a rapid-fire perceptual categorization—can result in either humanizing or dehumanizing modes of perception. Our model suggests that these perceptual pathways channel subsequent social inferences and behavior. We focus on the construct of perceptual dehumanization, which involves a shift from configural to featural processing of human faces and, in turn, enables the infliction of harm, such as harsh punishments. We discuss visual attention as an antecedent of perceptual modes and consequent modes of social behavior and speculate about the functions of humanization and dehumanization in sustaining macro-level social structures.

Configural and Featural Face Processing Influences on Emotion Recognition in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder.

Emotion recognition impairments have been demonstrated in schizophrenia (Sz), but are less consistent and lesser in magnitude in bipolar disorder (BD). This may be related to the extent to which different face processing strategies are engaged during emotion recognition in each of these disorders. We recently showed that Sz patients had impairments in the use of both featural and configural face processing strategies, whereas BD patients were impaired only in the use of the latter. Here we examine the influence that these impairments have on facial emotion recognition in these cohorts. Twenty-eight individuals with Sz, 28 individuals with BD, and 28 healthy controls completed a facial emotion labeling task with two conditions designed to separate the use of featural and configural face processing strategies; part-based and whole-face emotion recognition. Sz patients performed worse than controls on both conditions, and worse than BD patients on the whole-face condition. BD patients performed worse than controls on the whole-face condition only. Configural processing deficits appear to influence the recognition of facial emotions in BD, whereas both configural and featural processing abnormalities impair emotion recognition in Sz. This may explain discrepancies in the profiles of emotion recognition between the disorders. (JINS, 2017, 23, 287-291).

The right FFA is functionally connected to the dorsal visual pathway during configural face processing.

Configural processing, the processing of the spatial relationships among the features of a face, is a vital component of face perception. If configural processing depends on spatial information, might this process involve interactions between the face-processing regions of the ventral stream and visuospatial processing regions of the dorsal stream? We explored this question in healthy adults by examining the pattern of functional connectivity between the right FFA as a seed (individually defined) and the rest of the brain in a same-different face detection task. Detection of configural relative to featural face differences led to significantly stronger functional connectivity between the right FFA and a-priori localized spatial processing regions of the dorsal stream. In contrast, detection of featural relative to configural face differences led to stronger functional connectivity between the right FFA and other face-processing regions of the ventral stream, such as the right OFA and left FFA, as well as with the insula bilaterally. Further, these connectivity patterns correlated positively with reaction time performance: participants that responded slower on configural difference trials showed stronger functional connectivity between the right FFA, the left FFA and OFA and a-priori localized spatial processing regions of the dorsal stream, particularly within the left posterior parietal cortex. Conversely, participants that responded slower on featural difference trials showed stronger functional connectivity between the right FFA and anterior regions of the right inferior temporal gyrus, left insula and bilateral inferior frontal gyrus. Together, the findings suggest that the right FFA interacts with spatial processing regions of the dorsal stream during configural face processing and with ventral stream face-processing regions during featural face processing. Additionally, the extent of these interactions appears to depend on task demands. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

Double dissociation of configural and featural face processing on P1 and P2 components as a function of spatial attention.

Face recognition relies on both configural and featural processing. Previous research has shown that P1 is sensitive to configural face processing, but it is unclear whether any component is sensitive to featural face processing; moreover, if there is such a component, its temporal sequence relative to P1 is unknown. Thus, to avoid confounding physical stimuli differences between configural and featural face processing on ERP components, a spatial attention paradigm was employed by instructing participants to attend an image stream (faces and houses) or an alphanumeric character stream. The interaction between attention and face processing type on P1 and P2 components indicates different mechanisms of configural and featural face processing as a function of spatial attention. The steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) results clearly demonstrated that participants could selectively attend to different streams of information. Importantly, configural face processing elicited a larger posterior P1 (approximately 128 ms) than featural face processing, whereas P2 (approximately 248 ms) was greater for featural than for configural face processing under attended condition. The interaction between attention and face processing type (configural vs. featural) on P1 and P2 components indicates that there are different mechanisms of configural and featural face processing operating as functions of spatial attention. While the P1 result confirms previous findings separating configural and featural face processing, the newly observed P2 finding in the present study extends this separation to a double dissociation. Therefore, configural and featural face processing are modulated differently by spatial attention, and configural face processing precedes featural face processing.

An other-race effect for configural and featural processing of faces: upper and lower face regions play different roles.

We examined whether Asian individuals would show differential sensitivity to configural vs. featural changes to own- and other-race faces and whether such sensitivity would depend on whether the changes occurred in the upper vs. lower regions of the faces. We systematically varied the size of key facial features (eyes and mouth) of own-race Asian faces and other-race Caucasian faces, and the configuration (spacing) between the eyes and between the nose and mouth of the two types of faces. Results revealed that the other-race effect (ORE) is more pronounced when featural and configural spacing changes are in the upper region than in the lower region of the face. These findings reveal that information from the upper vs. lower region of the face contributes differentially to the ORE in face processing, and that processing of face race is influenced more by information location (i.e., upper vs. lower) than by information type (i.e., configural vs. featural).

Configural and featural face processing are differently modulated by attentional resources at early stages: An event-related potential study with rapid serial visual presentation

It is widely reported that face recognition relies on two dissociable mechanisms, the featural and the configural processing. However, it is unclear whether these two processing types involve different neural mechanisms and are differently modulated by attentional resources. Using the attentional blink (AB) paradigm, we aimed to investigate the effect of attentional resources on configural and featural face processing by recording event-related potentials (ERPs). The amount of attentional resources was manipulated as deficient or sufficient by presenting the second target (T2) in or out of the AB period, respectively. We found that in addition to a traditional P3 attention effect, the amplitude of N170/VPP to the T2 stimuli was also sensitive to attentional resources, suggesting that attention affects face processing at an earlier perceptual processing stage. More importantly, configural face processing elicited a larger posterior P1 compared to featural face processing, but only when the attentional resources were sufficient. In contrast, the anterior N1 was larger for configural relative to featural face processing only when the attentional resources were deficient. These results suggest that early stages of configural and featural face processing are differently modulated by attentional resources, possibly with different underlying mechanisms.

The influence of left and right hemisphere brain damage on configural and featural processing of affective faces

The literature about the lateralization of facial emotion perception according to valence (positive, negative) is conflicting; investigating the underlying processes may shed light on why some studies show right-hemisphere dominance across valence and other studies demonstrate hemispheric differences according to valence. This is the first clinical study to examine whether the use of configural and featural cues underlies hemispheric differences in affective face perception. Right brain-damaged (RBD; n = 17), left brain-damaged (LBD; n = 17) and healthy control (HC; n = 34) participants completed an affective face discrimination task that tested configural processing using whole faces and featural processing using partial faces. No group differences in expression perception according to valence or processing strategy were found. Across emotions, the RBD group was less accurate than the HC group in discriminating whole faces, whilst the RBD and LBD groups were less accurate than HCs in discriminating partial faces. This suggests that the right hemisphere processes facial expressions from configural and featural information, whereas the left hemisphere relies more heavily on featural facial information.

Strabismic amblyopia affects relational but not featural and Gestalt processing of faces

The ability to identify faces is of critical importance for normal social interactions. Previous evidence suggests that early visual deprivation may impair certain aspects of face recognition. The effects of strabismic amblyopia on face processing have not been investigated previously. In this study, a group of individuals with amblyopia were administered two tasks known to selectively measure face detection based on a Gestalt representation of a face (Mooney faces task) and featural and relational processing of faces (Jane faces task). Our data show that – when relying on their amblyopic eye only – strabismic amblyopes perform as well as normally sighted individuals in face detection and recognition on the basis of their single features. However, they are significantly impaired in discriminating among different faces on the basis of the spacing of their single features (i.e., configural processing of relational information). Our findings are the first to demonstrate that strabismic amblyopia may cause specific deficits in face recognition, and add to previous reports characterizing visual perceptual deficits associated in amblyopia as high-level and not only as low-level processing.