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 3: Responses of face-selective regions to different images of different identities. Peak responses to the different conditions are shown in the FFA, OFA, and pSTS. In contrast to Experiment 2, there was an immediate increase in response in the FFA and OFA when different images were shown in a block for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. However, there was no difference between any of the conditions in the pSTS. Error bars represent ±standard error across all participants. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, indicates an increased response relative to the 1-image condition.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig6: Experiment 3: Responses of face-selective regions to different images of different identities. Peak responses to the different conditions are shown in the FFA, OFA, and pSTS. In contrast to Experiment 2, there was an immediate increase in response in the FFA and OFA when different images were shown in a block for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. However, there was no difference between any of the conditions in the pSTS. Error bars represent ±standard error across all participants. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, indicates an increased response relative to the 1-image condition.

Mentions: Figure 6 (top) shows the response in the FFA to familiar and unfamiliar faces across all image conditions in Experiment 2. For familiar faces, the effect of image condition is explained by a larger response (i.e., a release from adaptation) to all conditions compared with the 1-image condition (2-image: t19 = 5.80, r = 0.49, P < 0.001; 4-images: t19 = 7.70, r = 0.55, P < 0.001; 8-images: t19 = 5.88, r = 0.47, P < 0.001). The 8-images condition (equivalent to the different-identities condition in Experment 1) was not significantly different from the 2-images (t19 = 0.19, r = 0.01, P = 0.85) and 4-images conditions (t19 = 0.58, r = 0.01, P = 0.57). The same pattern was found for unfamiliar faces, with a reduced response to the 1-image condition compared with all other conditions (2-images: t19 = 5.24, r = 0.47, P < 0.001; 4-images: t19 = 8.01, r = 0.57, P < 0.001; 8-images: t19 = 6.10, r = 0.52, P < 0.001). There was also no difference in the response between the 8-images condition and the 2-images (t19 = 0.57, r = 0.03, P = 0.58) and 4-images (t19 = 0.24, r = 0.01, P = 0.82) conditions.


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 3: Responses of face-selective regions to different images of different identities. Peak responses to the different conditions are shown in the FFA, OFA, and pSTS. In contrast to Experiment 2, there was an immediate increase in response in the FFA and OFA when different images were shown in a block for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. However, there was no difference between any of the conditions in the pSTS. Error bars represent ±standard error across all participants. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, indicates an increased response relative to the 1-image condition.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig6: Experiment 3: Responses of face-selective regions to different images of different identities. Peak responses to the different conditions are shown in the FFA, OFA, and pSTS. In contrast to Experiment 2, there was an immediate increase in response in the FFA and OFA when different images were shown in a block for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. However, there was no difference between any of the conditions in the pSTS. Error bars represent ±standard error across all participants. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, indicates an increased response relative to the 1-image condition.
Mentions: Figure 6 (top) shows the response in the FFA to familiar and unfamiliar faces across all image conditions in Experiment 2. For familiar faces, the effect of image condition is explained by a larger response (i.e., a release from adaptation) to all conditions compared with the 1-image condition (2-image: t19 = 5.80, r = 0.49, P < 0.001; 4-images: t19 = 7.70, r = 0.55, P < 0.001; 8-images: t19 = 5.88, r = 0.47, P < 0.001). The 8-images condition (equivalent to the different-identities condition in Experment 1) was not significantly different from the 2-images (t19 = 0.19, r = 0.01, P = 0.85) and 4-images conditions (t19 = 0.58, r = 0.01, P = 0.57). The same pattern was found for unfamiliar faces, with a reduced response to the 1-image condition compared with all other conditions (2-images: t19 = 5.24, r = 0.47, P < 0.001; 4-images: t19 = 8.01, r = 0.57, P < 0.001; 8-images: t19 = 6.10, r = 0.52, P < 0.001). There was also no difference in the response between the 8-images condition and the 2-images (t19 = 0.57, r = 0.03, P = 0.58) and 4-images (t19 = 0.24, r = 0.01, P = 0.82) conditions.

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