Face Perception

Abstract

Face perception is a challenging task, given the richness of information contained in faces, such as identity, expression and age, their dynamic and complex shapes and the subtlety of the differences between faces. Our face expertise shows a marked orientation dependence, being superior for upright faces, and the mechanisms involved process not only facial features but their spatial relationships to each other in a holistic, integrated manner. Cognitive models propose that recognition involves a flow of information through a series of stages, with distinct pathways for different facial properties, such as identity and expression. Anatomically, face processing involve a core face processing network in the occipital and temporal lobes, including the fusiform face area, as well as more extended regions of the brain. Face recognition is impaired in the condition of prosopagnosia, which can be either acquired or developmental. It may also be anomalous in some subjects with autism.

Key Concepts

  • Many types of information can be gathered through face perception, including the identity, gender, emotional state, age and attractiveness of the person.
  • The face inversion effect is a marker of an orientation‐dependent perceptual expertise we develop with faces.
  • The composite face effect and the part–whole advantage are experimental observations that show that we process faces in a holistic manner.
  • Not all parts of the face are equal in importance: the upper half and the eyes play a greater role in identifying the face.
  • Cognitive models propose a series of processing stages, with information flowing from perception to memory, and in different streams for identity and expression processing.
  • Neuroanatomic data show a core face network in the occipital and temporal lobes, more significant in the right side of the brain that interacts with additional regions in frontal and anterior temporal regions.
  • Prosopagnosia is the inability to recognise the identity of familiar faces, or to learn to recognise new faces.
  • There is debate about whether the recognition problem in prosopagnosia is limited to faces: some data indicate that identification of other objects for which the patient is also an expert may be affected too.
  • Prosopagnosia can be developmental, perhaps through a hereditary defect that affects the development of face‐sensitive cortical regions or their connections.
  • Patients with autism can have difficulty with recognising the identity or expression of faces: some suggest that this is due to their tendency to avoid looking at faces.

Keywords: face; perception; familiarity; memory; holistic; feature; prosopagnosia

Figure 1. The face inversion effect: the Thatcher illusion. This is a classic example of the difficulty in perceiving facial configuration in upside‐down faces, first shown using a picture of Margaret Thatcher (Thompson, ). If the eyes and mouth are turned upside down but the rest of the face is oriented correctly (top right), the result is bizarre, if not grotesque. However, when the faces are shown upside down (bottom row), this is not so easily appreciated. Reproduced from Thompson (1980) Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Figure 2. The composite face effect. When the top half of the face is shown with different bottom halves, observers are more likely to be fooled into answering that the tops appear different if the tops and bottoms are aligned to create a whole face (top row), than if they are not aligned (bottom row). This is cited as evidence of ‘holistic processing’ of upright faces. If the faces are viewed upside down, the effect of aligning the halves is much reduced or absent.
Figure 3. Face adaptation. The middle face is an ambiguous hybrid created by morphing between the left and the right faces. Observers who stare at the left face for 5 s and then look at the hybrid image are almost twice as likely to respond that the hybrid looks more like the right face than the left face, whereas the reverse is true if they stare at the right face for 5 s first.
Figure 4. A cognitive model of face (and voice) perception. In the visual system, the structure of the face is perceived and coded. This information is sent to diverging parallel processes for analysing face identity, expression and speech patterns, among others. For face identity, the information from coding of facial structure is compared to memories of previously seen faces, stored in face recognition units. A successful match activates person‐identity nodes and access to stores of semantic information about who this person is. A similar process can be envisioned for voices, which will converge on the person‐identity nodes, which is thus a multimodal gateway to person information.
Figure 5. The core face network. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was performed on three subjects while they viewed faces versus objects. Areas in orange indicate an increase in blood oxygen level when viewing faces. Only right hemisphere regions are shown.
close

References

Assal G, et al. (1984) Nonrecognition of familiar animals by a farmer. Zooagnosia or prosopagnosia for animals. Revue Neurologique (Paris) 140 (10): 580–584.

Barton J, et al. (2001) Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: effects of inversion and viewing duration. British Journal of Psychology 92: 527–549.

Barton J and Cherkasova M (2003) Face imagery and its relation to perception and covert recognition in prosopagnosia. Neurology 61: 220–225.

Barton J, et al. (2004) Are patients with social developmental disorders prosopagnosic? Perceptual heterogeneity in the Asperger and socio‐emotional processing disorders. Brain 127: 1706–1716.

Barton JJ, et al. (2006) Information processing during face recognition: the effects of familiarity, inversion, and morphing on scanning fixations. Perception 35 (8): 1089–1105.

Barton J (2008) Structure and function in acquired prosopagnosia: lessons from a series of ten patients with brain damage. Journal of Neuropsychology 2: 197–225.

Barton JJ, et al. (2009) Relating visual to verbal semantic knowledge: the evaluation of object recognition in prosopagnosia. Brain 132 (Pt 12): 3456–3466.

Belin P, et al. (2004) Thinking the voice: neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (3): 129–135.

Bjornstrom LE, et al. (2014) Visual word expertise: a study of inversion and the word‐length effect, with perceptual transforms. Perception 43 (5): 438–450.

Bruce V and Young A (1986) Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology 77: 305–327.

Bruyer R (1990) La reconnaissance des visages. Paris: Delachaux & Niestle.

Busigny T, et al. (2010) Acquired prosopagnosia as a face‐specific disorder: ruling out the general visual similarity account. Neuropsychologia 48 (7): 2051–2067.

Damasio AR, et al. (1982) Prosopagnosia: anatomic basis and behavioral mechanisms. Neurology 32: 331–341.

Davies‐Thompson J, et al. (2014) Acquired prosopagnosia: structural basis and processing impairments. Frontiers in Bioscience (Elite Edition) 6: 159–174.

de Renzi E (1986) Prosopagnosia in two patients with CT scan evidence of damage confined to the right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia 24: 385–389.

Diamond R and Carey S (1986) Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115: 107–117.

Fox CJ and Barton JJS (2007) What is adapted in face adaptation? The neural representations of expression in the human visual system. Brain Research 1127: 80–89.

Fox CJ, et al. (2008) It doesn't matter how you feel. The facial identity aftereffect is invariant to changes in facial expression. Journal of Vision 8 (3): 1–13.

Fox CJ, et al. (2009) The correlates of subjective perception of identity and expression in the face network: an fMRI adaptation study. NeuroImage 44: 569–580.

Gosselin F and Schyns P (2001) Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Research 41: 2261–2271.

Haxby JV, et al. (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (6): 223–233.

Kanwisher N, et al. (1997) The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience 17: 4302–4311.

Lai M, et al. (2012) Facial age after‐effects show partial identity invariance and transfer from hands to faces. Cortex 48 (4): 477–486.

Lai M, et al. (2013) The role of skin texture and facial shape in representations of age and identity. Cortex 49 (1): 252–265.

Landis T, et al. (1986) Are unilateral right posterior cerebral lesions sufficient to cause prosopagnosia ? Clinical and radiological findings in six additional patients. Cortex 22: 243–252.

Malcolm GL, et al. (2008) Scan patterns during the processing of facial expression versus identity: an exploration of task‐driven and stimulus‐driven effects. Journal of Vision 8 (8): 1–9.

Maurer D, et al. (2002) The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 255–260.

McNeil J and Warrington E (1993) Prosopagnosia: a face‐specific disorder. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 46A: 1–10.

Schyns P, et al. (2002) Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the use of visual information. Psychological Science 13: 402–409.

Smith ML, et al. (2005) Transmitting and decoding facial expressions. Psychological Science 16 (3): 184–189.

Susilo T and Duchaine B (2013) Advances in developmental prosopagnosia research. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23 (3): 423–429.

Tanaka J and Farah M (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 46A: 225–245.

Tanaka JW, et al. (2010) Using computerized games to teach face recognition skills to children with autism spectrum disorder: the Let's Face It! program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51 (8): 944–952.

Tanaka JW and Sung A (2013) The “Eye Avoidance” hypothesis of autism face processing. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Thomas C, et al. (2009) Reduced structural connectivity in ventral visual cortex in congenital prosopagnosia. Nature Neuroscience 12 (1): 29–31.

Thompson P (1980) Margaret Thatcher: a new illusion. Perception 9: 483–484.

Valentine T (1991) A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 45A: 161–204.

Van Gulick AE, et al. (2015) Measuring nonvisual knowledge about object categories: The Semantic Vanderbilt Expertise Test. Behavior Research Methods.

Webster MA and MacLeod DI (2011) Visual adaptation and face perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 366 (1571): 1702–1725.

Weigelt S, et al. (2012) Face identity recognition in autism spectrum disorders: a review of behavioral studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36 (3): 1060–1084.

Yin R (1969) Looking at upside‐down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81: 141–145.

Young A, et al. (1987) Configurational information in face perception. Perception 16: 747–759.

Further Reading

Bruce V and Young A (2011) Face Perception. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Cole J (1997) About Face. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Peterson MA and Rhodes G (2003) Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes G, Calder A, Johnson M and Haxby JV (2011) Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schweinberger SR and Burton AM (2011) Person perception 25 years after Bruce and Young (1986). British Journal of Psychology 102 (4) (special issue).

Young AW, De Haan EHF and Bauer RM (eds) (2008) Special issue: Face perception. Journal of Neuropsychology 2 (1).

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Barton, Jason JS(Jan 2016) Face Perception. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0025786]