Limits...
Image-invariant responses in face-selective regions do not explain the perceptual advantage for familiar face recognition.

Davies-Thompson J, Newling K, Andrews TJ - Cereb. Cortex (2012)

Bottom Line: Here, we used an functional magnetic resonance-adaptation paradigm to investigate image invariance in face-selective regions of the human brain.We found clear evidence for a degree of image-invariant adaptation to facial identity in face-selective regions, such as the fusiform face area.This suggests that the marked differences in the perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces may not depend on differences in the way multiple images are represented in core face-selective regions of the human brain.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, York Neuroimaging Centre, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.

ABSTRACT
The ability to recognize familiar faces across different viewing conditions contrasts with the inherent difficulty in the perception of unfamiliar faces across similar image manipulations. It is widely believed that this difference in perception and recognition is based on the neural representation for familiar faces being less sensitive to changes in the image than it is for unfamiliar faces. Here, we used an functional magnetic resonance-adaptation paradigm to investigate image invariance in face-selective regions of the human brain. We found clear evidence for a degree of image-invariant adaptation to facial identity in face-selective regions, such as the fusiform face area. However, contrary to the predictions of models of face processing, comparable levels of image invariance were evident for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. This suggests that the marked differences in the perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces may not depend on differences in the way multiple images are represented in core face-selective regions of the human brain.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Experiment 1: RTs and Errors to images of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Participants were asked to indicate whether a pair of successively presented images was from the same or a different identity. The images were either identical (same image), different images of the same person (different image), or images of different people (different identity). The largest difference between familiar and unfamiliar faces occurred when participants responded to different images of the same person. Error bars represent ±standard error across participants, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3539454&req=5

fig4: Experiment 1: RTs and Errors to images of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Participants were asked to indicate whether a pair of successively presented images was from the same or a different identity. The images were either identical (same image), different images of the same person (different image), or images of different people (different identity). The largest difference between familiar and unfamiliar faces occurred when participants responded to different images of the same person. Error bars represent ±standard error across participants, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

Mentions: To determine the degree to which the identity of the familiar and unfamiliar faces used in this study could be discriminated across different images, we used a behavioral paradigm in which participants were presented with pairs of images (see Fig. 1). There were 3 conditions: same image (identical face images), different images (of the same person), or different identities (different images of different people). Participants were asked to indicate by a button press whether the 2 faces were of the same person or 2 different people. The accuracy and reaction time (RT) for correct responses to familiar and unfamiliar faces are shown in Figure 4.


Image-invariant responses in face-selective regions do not explain the perceptual advantage for familiar face recognition.

Davies-Thompson J, Newling K, Andrews TJ - Cereb. Cortex (2012)

Experiment 1: RTs and Errors to images of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Participants were asked to indicate whether a pair of successively presented images was from the same or a different identity. The images were either identical (same image), different images of the same person (different image), or images of different people (different identity). The largest difference between familiar and unfamiliar faces occurred when participants responded to different images of the same person. Error bars represent ±standard error across participants, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3539454&req=5

fig4: Experiment 1: RTs and Errors to images of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Participants were asked to indicate whether a pair of successively presented images was from the same or a different identity. The images were either identical (same image), different images of the same person (different image), or images of different people (different identity). The largest difference between familiar and unfamiliar faces occurred when participants responded to different images of the same person. Error bars represent ±standard error across participants, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Mentions: To determine the degree to which the identity of the familiar and unfamiliar faces used in this study could be discriminated across different images, we used a behavioral paradigm in which participants were presented with pairs of images (see Fig. 1). There were 3 conditions: same image (identical face images), different images (of the same person), or different identities (different images of different people). Participants were asked to indicate by a button press whether the 2 faces were of the same person or 2 different people. The accuracy and reaction time (RT) for correct responses to familiar and unfamiliar faces are shown in Figure 4.

Bottom Line: Here, we used an functional magnetic resonance-adaptation paradigm to investigate image invariance in face-selective regions of the human brain.We found clear evidence for a degree of image-invariant adaptation to facial identity in face-selective regions, such as the fusiform face area.This suggests that the marked differences in the perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces may not depend on differences in the way multiple images are represented in core face-selective regions of the human brain.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, York Neuroimaging Centre, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.

ABSTRACT
The ability to recognize familiar faces across different viewing conditions contrasts with the inherent difficulty in the perception of unfamiliar faces across similar image manipulations. It is widely believed that this difference in perception and recognition is based on the neural representation for familiar faces being less sensitive to changes in the image than it is for unfamiliar faces. Here, we used an functional magnetic resonance-adaptation paradigm to investigate image invariance in face-selective regions of the human brain. We found clear evidence for a degree of image-invariant adaptation to facial identity in face-selective regions, such as the fusiform face area. However, contrary to the predictions of models of face processing, comparable levels of image invariance were evident for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. This suggests that the marked differences in the perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces may not depend on differences in the way multiple images are represented in core face-selective regions of the human brain.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus