Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Data Analysis
Method Participants
Task and Procedure
Results and Discussion
General Discussion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Lateralized Processing of Faces

Profile image of Nora PreussNora Preuss

2014, Swiss Journal of Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/A000140
visibility

…

description

10 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

We investigated the lateralized processing of featural and configural information in face recognition in two divided visual field studies. In Experiment 1, participants matched the identity of a cue face containing either featural (scrambled faces) or configural (blurred faces) information with an intact test face presented subsequently either in the right visual field (RVF) or in the left visual field (LVF). Unilateral presentation was controlled by monitoring eye movements. The results show an advantage of the left hemisphere (LH) over the right hemisphere (RH) for featural processing and a specialization of the RH for configural compared to featural processing. In Experiment 2, we focused on configural processing and its relationship to familiarity. Either learned or novel test faces were presented in the LVF or the RVF. Participants recognized learned faces better when presented in the LVF than in the RVF, suggesting that the RH has an advantage in the recognition of learned faces. Because the recognition of familiar faces relies strongly on configural information , we argue that the advantage of the RH over the LH in configural processing is a function of familiarity.

Related papers

A serial test of the laterality of familiar face recognition
Harvey Babkoff

Brain and Cognition, 2002

The purpose of the present study was to address the issue of laterality of familiar face recognition. Seventy-two participants judged familiar faces presented laterally or centrally for their “faceness,” familiarity, occupation, and name (which represent four stages of familiar face processing) using one of three response modes—verbal, manual, or combined. The pattern of reaction times (RTs) implied a serial process

View PDFchevron_right
Upright and Inverted Faces: The Right Hemisphere Knows the Difference
Susan Levine

Cortex, 1978

View PDFchevron_right
Neural Correlates of the Left-Visual-Field Superiority in Face Perception Appear at Multiple Stages of Face Processing
Marcia Grabowecky, Jerre Levy

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2003

& Studies in healthy individuals and split-brain patients have shown that the representation of facial information from the left visual field (LVF) is better than the representation of facial information from the right visual field (RVF). To investigate the neurophysiological basis of this LVF superiority in face perception, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to centrally presented face stimuli in which relevant facial information is present bilaterally (B faces) or only in the left (L faces) or the right (R faces) visual field. Behavioral findings showed best performance for B faces and, in line with the LVF superiority, better performance for L than R faces. Evoked potentials to B, L, and R faces at 100-to 150-msec poststimulus showed no evidence of asymmetric transfer of information between the hemispheres at early stages of visual processing, suggesting that this factor is not responsible for the LVF superiority. Neural correlates of the LVF superiority, however, were manifested in a shorter latency of the face-specific N170 component to L than R faces and in a larger amplitude to L than R faces at 220 -280 and 400 -600 msec over both hemispheres. These ERP amplitude differences between L and R faces covaried across subjects with the extent to which the face-specific N170 component was larger over the right than the left hemisphere. We conclude that the two hemispheres exchange information symmetrically at early stages of face processing and together generate a shared facial representation, which is better when facial information is directly presented to the right hemisphere (RH; L faces) than to the left hemisphere (LH; R faces) and best when both hemispheres receive facial information (B faces). & (L faces) that project task-relevant facial information to the LVF, and (3) right hemifaces (R faces) that project task-relevant facial information to the RVF. The second face (target) was always a B face (see . Brain potentials to the three types of prime faces were used to investigate the nature of interhemispheric communication at early stages of visual processing and

View PDFchevron_right
Configural and featural processing during face perception: A new stimulus set
Karl Verfaillie

Behavior Research Methods, 2009

Human observers are experts in recognizing many different faces, even with different expressions, varying hair styles, and different attributes, such as jewelry, makeup, and glasses. This expertise is remarkable, since faces are such complex stimuli, differing only subtly in local features (e.g., the shape of the nose or mouth, eye color, etc.) and in configural, or holistic, characteristics (i.e., the spa-

View PDFchevron_right
Upright or inverted, entire or exploded: right-hemispheric superiority in face recognition withstands multiple spatial manipulations
Giulia Prete

PeerJ, 2015

Background.The ability to identify faces has been interpreted as a cerebral specialization based on the evolutionary importance of these social stimuli, and a number of studies have shown that this function is mainly lateralized in the right hemisphere. The aim of this study was to assess the right-hemispheric specialization in face recognition in unfamiliar circumstances.Methods.Using a divided visual field paradigm, we investigated hemispheric asymmetries in the matching of two subsequent faces, using two types of transformation hindering identity recognition, namely upside-down rotation and spatial “explosion” (female and male faces were fractured into parts so that their mutual spatial relations were left intact), as well as their combination.Results.We confirmed the right-hemispheric superiority in face processing. Moreover, we found a decrease of the identity recognition for more extreme “levels of explosion” and for faces presented upside-down (either as sample or target stim...

View PDFchevron_right
Face recognition: A general or specific right hemisphere capacity?
Susan Levine

Brain and Cognition, 1988

Face-recognition ability has been claimed to be qualitatively different from other pattern-recognition abilities. One argument for this claim is the finding of a significant right hemisphere advantage for the recognition of upright but not inverted faces. However, this argument is justified only if this orientation-sensitive pattern is unique to faces. In the present study, comparable patterns of orientationsensitive involvement of the right hemisphere are found for the recognition of faces and houses. This finding is interpreted as evidence for a right hemisphere schema formation capacity that is applied not only to upright faces but also to other familiar classes of stimuli in their canonical upright orientation. It is suggested that any greater right hemisphere involvement in the recognition of upright faces is due to our greater expertise at recognizing faces than other stimulus types. We also find evidence that only a subset of right-handed adults show orientationsensitive right hemisphere involvement in the recognition of faces and houses: in particular, those dextrals with a characteristic hemispheric arousal asymmetry in favor of the right hemisphere. In contrast, dextrals with a characteristic arousal asymmetry in favor of the left hemisphere do not show significant visual field asymmetries for faces or houses in either upright or inverted orientations. o 1988 Academic Press, Inc.

View PDFchevron_right
Configurational coding, familiarity and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition in sheep
Jonathan W Peirce

Neuropsychologia, 2000

This study examined characteristics of visual recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces in sheep using a 2-way discrimination task. Of particular interest were eects of lateralisation and the dierential use of internal (con®gurational) vs external features of the stimuli. Animals were trained in a Y-maze to identify target faces from pairs, both of which were familiar (same¯ock as the subjects) or both of which were unfamiliar (dierent¯ock). Having been trained to identify the rewarded face a series of stimuli were presented to the sheep, designed to test for the use of each visual hemi®eld in the discriminations and the use of internal and external facial cues. The ®rst experiment showed that there was a left visual hemi®eld (LVF) advantage in the identi®cation of`hemifaces', and`mirrored hemifaces' and`chimeric' faces and that this eect was strongest with familiar faces. This represents the ®rst evidence for visual ®eld bias outside the primate literature. Results from the second experiment showed that, whilst both familiar and unfamiliar faces could be identi®ed by the external features alone, only the familiar faces could be recognised by the internal features alone. Overall the results suggest separate recognition methods for socially familiar and unfamiliar faces, with the former being coded more by internal, con®gurational cues and showing a lateral bias to the left visual ®eld. #

View PDFchevron_right
Lateralization of face processing in the human brain
Pawan Sinha

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2012

Are visual face processing mechanisms the same in the left and right cerebral hemispheres? The possibility of such ‘duplicated processing’ seems puzzling in terms of neural resource usage, and we currently lack a precise characterization of the lateral differences in face processing. To address this need, we have undertaken a three-pronged approach. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we assessed cortical sensitivity to facial semblance, the modulatory effects of context and temporal response dynamics. Results on all three fronts revealed systematic hemispheric differences. We found that: (i) activation patterns in the left fusiform gyrus correlate with image-level face-semblance, while those in the right correlate with categorical face/non-face judgements. (ii) Context exerts significant excitatory/inhibitory influence in the left, but has limited effect on the right. (iii) Face-selectivity persists in the right even after activity on the left has returned to baseline. The...

View PDFchevron_right
Featural, configural, and holistic face-processing strategies evoke different scan patterns
Janek S. Lobmaier, Fred W Mast

Perception, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Face viewpoint effects about three axes: the role of configural and featural processing
Simone Favelle, Stephen Palmisano

Perception, 2011

We directly compared recognition for faces following 0° – 75° viewpoint rotation about the yaw, pitch, and roll axes. The aim was to determine the extent to which configural and featural information supported face recognition following rotations about each of these axes. Experiment 1 showed that performance on a sequential-matching task was viewpoint-dependent for all three types of rotation. The best face-recognition accuracy and shortest reaction time was found for roll rotations, then for yaw rotations, and finally the worst accuracy and slowest reaction time was found for pitch rotations. Directional differences in recognition were found for pitch rotations, but not for roll or yaw. Experiment 2 provided evidence that, in all three cases, viewpoint-dependent declines in recognition were primarily driven by the loss of configural information. However, it also appeared that significant featural information was lost following yaw and pitch (but not roll) rotations. Together, these findings show that unfamiliar-face recognition is viewpoint-dependent following rotation about each axis (and in each direction), and that performance is based on the availability of configural and, to a lesser extent, featural information.

View PDFchevron_right

References (56)

  1. Baird, L. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). The bilateral advantage for famous faces: Interhemispheric communication or competi- tion? Neuropsychologia, 46, 1581-1587. doi 10.1016/j.neuro- psychologia.2008.01.001
  2. Bar, M., Aminoff, E., & Ishai, A. (2008). Famous faces activate contextual associations in the parahippocampal cortex. Cere- bral Cortex, 18, 1233-1238. doi 10.1093/cercor/bhm170
  3. Bartlett, J. C., Searcy, J. H., & Abdi, H. (2003). What are the routes to face recognition? In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 21-62). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bombari, D., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2009). Featural, con- figural, and holistic face-processing strategies evoke different scan patterns. Perception, 38, 1508-1521. doi 10.1068/p6117
  5. Bourne, V. J. (2006). The divided visual field paradigm: Method- ological considerations. Laterality, 11, 373-393. doi 10.1080/ 13576500600633982
  6. Bourne, V. J., & Hole, G. J. (2006). Lateralized repetition priming for familiar faces: Evidence for asymmetric interhemispheric cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 59, 1117-1133. doi 10.1080/02724980543000150
  7. Bourne, V. J., Vladeanu, M., & Hole, G. J. (2009). Lateralized repetition priming for featurally and configurally manipulated familiar faces: Evidence for differentially lateralized process- ing mechanisms. Laterality, 14, 287-299. doi 10.1080/ 13576500802383709
  8. Boutsen L., Humphreys, G. W., Praamstra P., & Warbrick, T. (2006). Comparing neural correlates of configural processing in faces and objects: An ERP study of the Thatcher illusion. Neuroimage, 32, 352-367. doi 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.023
  9. Bruyer, R., & Stroot, C. (1984). Lateral differences in face pro- cessing: Task and modality effects. Cortex, 20, 377-390.
  10. Butler, S. H., & Harvey, M. (2005). Does inversion abolish the left chimeric face processing advantage? Neuroreport, 16, 1991-1993. doi 10.1097/00001756-200512190-00004
  11. Buttle, H., & Raymond, J. E. (2003). High familiarity enhances visual change detection for face stimuli. Perception & Psycho- physics, 65, 1296-1306. doi 10.3758/BF03194853
  12. Cabeza, R., & Kato, T. (2000). Features are also important: Con- tributions of featural and configural processing to face recog- nition. Psychological Science, 11, 429-433. doi 10.1111/1467- 9280.00283
  13. Carbon, C. C., Grüter, T., Weber, J. E., & Lueschow, A. (2007). Faces as objects of nonexpertise: Processing of Thatcherised faces in congenital prosopagnosia. Perception, 36, 1635-1645. doi 10.1068/p5467
  14. Collishaw, S. M., & Hole, G. J. (2000). Featural and configura- tional processes in the recognition of faces of different famil- iarity. Perception, 29, 893-909. doi 10.1068/p2949
  15. Cooper, T. J., Harvey, M., Lavidor, M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2007). Hemispheric asymmetries in image-specific and ab- stractive priming of famous faces: Evidence from reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2910-2921. doi 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.005
  16. Fink, G. R., Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. C., Frith, C. D., Fracko- wiak, R. S., & Dolan, R. J. (1996). Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees? Nature, 382, 626-628. doi 10.1038/382626a0
  17. Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (1999). Activation of the middle fusiform "face area" in- creases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 568-573. doi 10.1038/9224
  18. Goffaux, V., Hault, B., Michel, C., Vuong, Q. C., & Rossion, B. (2005). The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Per- ception, 34, 77-86. doi 10.1068/p5370
  19. Haxby, J. B., Ungerleider, L. G., Clark, V. P., Schouten, J. L., Hoffman, E. A., & Martin, A. (1999). The effect of face inver- sion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception. Neuron, 22, 189-199. doi 10.1016/s0896- 6273(00)80690-x Heinze, H. J., Hinrichs, H., Scholz, M., Burchert, W., & Mangun, G. R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of global and local process- ing: A combined PET and ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 485-498. doi 10.1162/089892998562898
  20. Hellige, J. B., Corwin, W. H., & Jonsson, J. E. (1984). Effects of perceptual quality on the processing of human faces presented to the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 90-107. doi 10.1037/0096-1523.10.1.90
  21. Hilger, L. A., & Koenig, O. (1991). Separable mechanisms in face processing: Evidence from hemispheric specialization. Jour- nal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 42-58. doi 10.1162/jocn. 1991.3.1.42
  22. Hsiao, J. H., Shieh, D., & Cottrell, G. W. (2008). Convergence of the visual field split: Hemispheric modeling of face and object rec- ognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2298-2307. doi 10.1162/jocn.2008.20162
  23. Ishai, A., Schmidt, C. F., & Boesiger, P. (2005). Face perception is mediated by a distributed cortical network. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 87-93. doi 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.05.027
  24. Ivry, R. B., & Robertson, L. C. (1998). The two sides of percep- tion. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  25. Kampf, M., Nachson, I., & Babkoff, H. (2002). A serial test of the laterality of familiar face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 50, 35-50. doi 10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00008-8
  26. Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of holistic processing and global/lo- cal paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24-38. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.24
  27. Lamb, M. R., Robertson, L. C., & Knight, R. T. (1990). Component mechanisms underlying the processing of hierarchically organ- ized patterns: Inferences from patients with unilateral cortical lesions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 471-483. doi 10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.471
  28. Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2006). Face-specific configural pro- cessing of relational information. The British Journal of Psy- chology, 97, 19-29. doi 10.1348/000712605X54794
  29. Leehey, S., Carey, S., Diamond, R., & Cahn, A. (1978). Upright and inverted faces: The right hemisphere knows the difference. Cortex, 14, 411-419.
  30. Letourneau, S. M., & Mitchell, T. V. (2008). Behavioral and ERP measures of holistic face processing in a composite task. Brain & Cognition, 67, 234-245. doi 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.007
  31. Lobmaier, J. S., Klaver, P., Loenneker, T., Martin, E., & Mast, F. W. (2008). Featural and configural face processing strategies: Evi- dence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neu- roreport, 19, 287-291. doi 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f556fe
  32. Lobmaier, J. S., & Mast, F. W. (2007). Perception of novel faces: The parts have it! Perception, 36, 1660-1673. doi 10.1068/p5642
  33. Marzi, C. A., & Berlucchi, G. (1977). Right visual field superiority for accuracy of recognition of famous faces in normals. Neuro- psychologia, 15, 751-756. doi 10.1016/0028-3932(77)90005-7
  34. Maurer, D., O'Craven, K. M., Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Springer, M. V., Lewis, T. L., & Grady, C. L. (2007). Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1438-1451. doi 10.1016/ j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.016
  35. Megraya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865-876. doi 10.3758/BF03193433
  36. Mohr, B., Landgrebe, A., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2002). Interhemi- spheric cooperation for familiar but not unfamiliar face process- ing. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1841-1848. doi 10.1016/S0028- 3932(02)00040-4
  37. Nielson, K. A., Seidenberg, M., Woodard, J. L., Durgerian, S. Zhang, Q., Gross, W., . . . Rao, S. M. (2010). Common neural systems associated with the recognition of famous faces and names: An event-related functional-MRI study. Brain and Cognition, 72, 491-498. doi 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.01.006
  38. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handed- ness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113. doi 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
  39. Palmer, T., & Tzeng, O. J. (1990). Cerebral asymmetry in visual attention. Brain and Cognition, 13, 46-58. doi 10.1016/0278- 2626(90)90039-Q
  40. Patterson, K., & Bradshaw, J. L. (1975). Differential hemispheric mediation of nonverbal visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 246-52.
  41. Rakover, S. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1-30. doi 10.1348/000712602162427
  42. Rhodes, G. (1985). Lateralized processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 249-271.
  43. Robertson, L. C., Lamb, M. R., & Knight, R. T. (1988). Effects of lesions of temporal-parietal junction on perceptual and attention- al processing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 3757-3769.
  44. Ross, E. D., & Mesulam, M. M. (1979). Dominant language func- tions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gestur- ing. Archives of Neurology, 36, 144-148. doi 10.1001/ archneur.1979.00500390062006
  45. Rossion, B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psycho- logica, 132, 300-312. doi 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002
  46. Rossion, B., Dricot, L., Devolder, A., Bodart, J. M., Cromme- linck, M., De Gelder, B., & Zoontjes, R. (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries for whole-based and part-based face processing in the human fusiform gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neurosci- ence, 12, 793-802. doi 10.1162/089892900562606
  47. Schwaninger, A., Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2003). Expert face processing: Specialization and constraints. In G. Schwarzer & H. Leder (Eds.), Development of face processing (pp. 81-97). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  48. Scott, L. S., & Nelson, C. A., (2006). Featural and configural face processing in adults and infants: A behavioral and electrophysi- ological investigation. Perception, 35, 1107-1128. doi 10.1068/ p5493
  49. Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor- mance, 22, 904-915. doi 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.904
  50. Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., Gold, J. M., & Bennet, P. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face perception. Current Biology, 14, 391-396. doi 10.1016/j.cub. 2004.02.028
  51. Sergent, J. (1985). Influence of task and input factors on hemi- spheric involvement in face processing. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 846-861.
  52. Sergent, J., & Bindra, D. (1981). Differential hemispheric pro- cessing of faces: Methodological considerations and reinter- pretation. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 541-554. doi 10.1037/ 0033-2909.89.3.541
  53. Stuerzel, F., & Spillmann, L. (2000). Thatcher illusion: Depend- ence on angle of rotation. Perception, 29, 937-942. doi 10.1068/p2888
  54. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face rec- ognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245. doi 10.1080/14640749308401045
  55. Veres-Injac, B., & Persike, M. (2009). Recognition of briefly pre- sented familiar and unfamiliar faces. Psihologija, 42, 47-66. doi 10.2298/PSI0901047V
  56. Yovel, G., Yovel, I., & Levy, J. (2001). Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effects of stimulus and task factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- ception and Performance, 27, 1369-1385. doi 10.1037/0096- 1523.27.6.1369

Related papers

Hemisphere-dependent holistic processing of familiar faces
meike ramon

Brain and Cognition, 2011

In two behavioral experiments involving lateralized stimulus presentation, we tested whether one of the most commonly used measures of holistic face processing-the composite face effect-would be more pronounced for stimuli presented to the right as compared to the left hemisphere. In experiment 1, we investigated the composite face effect in a verbal identification task, similar to its original report . Aligning top and bottom halves of composite face stimuli led to performance decreases irrespective of hemifield, indicating holistic processing of comparable magnitude for inputs provided separately to either hemisphere. However, when matching of the same top parts was required in experiment 2, an alignment-dependent performance decrease was found for stimuli presented in the left, but not right visual field. These observations suggest that the right hemisphere dominates in early stages of holistic processing, as indexed by the composite face effect, but that later processes such as face identification and naming are based on unified representations that are independent of input lateralization. Moreover, the composite face effect may not rely on the exact same representation(s) when measured in matching and identification tasks.

View PDFchevron_right
Lateralised repetition priming for featurally and configurally manipulated familiar faces: Evidence for differentially lateralised processing mechanisms
Graham Hole

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 2009

Although early research suggested that the right hemisphere was dominant for processing faces, more recent studies have provided evidence for both hemispheres being involved, at least to some extent. In this experiment we examined hemispheric specialisations by using a lateralised repetition-priming paradigm with selectively degraded faces. Configurally degraded prime faces produced negative priming when presented to the left visual field (right hemisphere) and positive priming (facilitation) when presented to the right visual field (left hemisphere). Featurally degraded prime faces produced the opposite pattern of effects: positive priming when presented to the left visual field (right hemisphere) and negative priming when presented to the right visual field (left hemisphere). These results support the proposal that each hemisphere is differentially specialised for processing distinct forms of facial information: the right hemisphere for configural information and the left hemisphere for featural information.

View PDFchevron_right
Lateral Asymmetry in Pattern Recognition: Understanding the Effects of Familiarity, Distinction, and Perspective Change
Michael McNeese
View PDFchevron_right
Lateral asymmetries in the recognition of words, familiar faces and unfamiliar faces
Susan Levine

Neuropsychologia, 1979

View PDFchevron_right
Does right hemisphere superiority sufficiently explain the left visual field advantage in face recognition?
Matthew Harrison

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2019

The tendency to perceive the identity of the left half of a centrally viewed face more strongly than that of the right half is associated with visual processing of faces in the right hemisphere (RH). Here we investigate conditions under which this wellknown left visual field (LVF) half-face advantage fails to occur. Our findings challenge the sufficiency of its explanation as a function of RH specialization for face processing coupled with LVF-RH correspondence. In two experiments we show that the LVF half-face advantage occurs for normal faces and chimeric faces composed of different half-face identities. In a third experiment, we show that face inversion disrupts the LVF half-face advantage. In two additional experiments we show that half-faces viewed in isolation or paired with inverted half-faces fail to show the LVF advantage. Consistent with previous explanations of the LVF half-face advantage, our findings suggest that the LVF half-face advantage reflects RH superiority for processing faces and direct transfer of LVF face information to visual cortex in the RH. Critically, however, our findings also suggest the operation of a third factor, which involves the prioritization of face-processing resources to the LVF, but only when two upright face-halves compete for these resources. We therefore conclude that RH superiority alone does not suffice to explain the LVF advantage in face recognition. We also discuss the implications of our findings for specialized visual processing of faces by the right hemisphere, and we distinguish LVF advantages for faces viewed centrally and peripherally in divided field studies.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science

    • Cited by

    Speeded Recognition of Fear and Surprise in Autism
    Emese Nagy

    Perception

    Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) involve difficulties with socioemotional functioning; however, research on emotion recognition remains inconclusive. Children with ASD have been reported to show less susceptibility to spatial inversion. The aim of this study is to examine whether children with ASD utilize atypical abilities in socioemotional processing. This study tested 13 children with ASD (1 girl, M: 15.10 years, standard deviation [ SD]: 1.60 years), 13 children without ASD (3 girls, M: 15.92 years, SD: 1.03 years), and 20 control adults (11 women, M: 24.77 years, SD: 8.30 years) to investigate the speed and accuracy of their responses to images of neutral faces and faces expressing “easy” (happiness, anger) and “difficult” emotions (surprise, fear) in nonrotated (0°) and rotated (30°, 90°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 270°, and 330°) positions. The results showed that children with ASD recognized both easy and difficult emotions as accurately as did children and adults without ASD. Childre...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved