PSC100Y

Introduction to Cognitive Psychology Perception 4 – Face Perception!

Perception 4-1!

Next To!
Eye! Eye!

Above and Above and

to the Left! to the Right!
Nose!
Directly
Above!
Mouth!

•  Faces gave the same •  Faces differ in metric properties: the exact sizes and shapes of the
basic parts in the same parts and the relative distances among them.!
categorical positions, so
they have the same
geon structural
description.!

Basic-Level Categorization! Subordinate-Level Categorization!

•  It is not designed to explain how we differentiate between two
•  Recognition by Components theory explained how we do basic- members of the same category.!
level categorization!
Face! PRS Custom 22! ‘56 Strat!
Backpack!
Guitar!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
1

 Subordinate-Level Categorization! Holistic Perception of Faces!

•  Categorizing faces is subordinate-level categorization.!

•  We do this using the metric properties of the faces.!

•  Faces are perceived and stored holistically, meaning we do not

store individual parts.!

•  We also store metric relationships among parts and other overall

parts.!

Holistic Perception of Faces! Holistic Perception of Faces!

•  Inversion doesn’t have much of an impact on the identification

of most other kinds of objects.!

•  For example, we can easily tell that the image on the left is a
cat and the image on the right is a dog.!

•  It is difficult to perceive the face when it is inverted.! •  The highly specific impairment of face perception produced by
inversion is called the “face inversion effect.”!

Thatcherization!

•  When the face is upside down, it is difficult to see the transformation.!

Thompson (1980)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
2

 PSC100Y Charlie Gross!

Introduction to Cognitive Psychology

•  Charlie Gross did single unit recordings from inferotemporal (IT)

cortex of the rhesus monkey.!
Perception 4-2!

Charlie Gross!

•  Recordings show that the cell strongly responded to various hands

and a bit to an oven mitt, but not to other stimuli.!

Gross (2008)!

•  It is also possible to record face-specific ERP responses from the

surface of the cortex in humans.!
This cell gives a big response to monkey and human faces, but if you
scramble the face, the cell doesn’t respond very much.! •  This is usually done in people who have epilepsy that does not
respond to anti-seizure medication.!

•  The goal is to figure out exactly where the seizure is coming from so
that that part of the brain can be removed.!
Desimone, Albright,
Gross, & Bruce. (1984)! Allison et al. (1999)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
3

 Front of Head!

•  In this study, they recorded activity while subjects looked at various

stimuli such as cars, faces, scenes, words, and numbers.! Back of Head!

•  The dark line shows the ERP elicited from the cortical surface to Each dot on the brain represents one electrode in which a face-specific
faces, which contains a very large response around 200 ms after response was obtained.!
onset.! !
Right hemisphere shows more face-related activity than the left
•  This response was seen for faces, but not for other stimuli.! hemisphere.!
Allison et al. (1999)! Allison et al. (1999)!

PSC100Y
Introduction to Cognitive Psychology

•  The face-specific ERP component is called N170 because it is a

negative-going voltage that peaks around 170 ms after onset of
stimulus.!
Perception 4-3!
•  It is larger for faces than most other stimuli.!

Rossion & Jacques (2012)!

Back of
Head!

•  Face-related brain activity can also be seen in fMRI studies…! Inferi Front of
or (v Head!
en
of th tral) surf
e bra ac e
in!
•  The most consistent activity was in the fusiform gyrus, shown
here in yellow.!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
4

 Blank (20 seconds)!

Faces (30 seconds)!

Blank (20 seconds)!

Objects (30 seconds)!

Blank (20 seconds)!

Faces (30 seconds)!

Blank (20 seconds)!

Objects (30 seconds)!

Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)!

Part I- Find a possible face-selective region by

comparing fMRI response to faces vs non-face objects!

R! L!

Fusiform Face
Area (FFA)!

•  They found that there was greater activity for faces than for
objects in the FFA.!

•  This was not enough to show that the FFA is actually face specific.!

•  There may be differences in low-level visual features such as texture

Left & Right or curvature that differ between a typical face and object.!
are reversed!
Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)!

Part II- Rule out low-level differences between faces and non- Part III- Rule out possibility that FFA responds when viewing
face stimuli by comparing scrambled faces with intact faces! different examples of the same category (houses)!

R! L! R! L!

Fusiform Face Fusiform Face

Area (FFA)! Area (FFA)!
Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)! Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
5

 Part IV- Compare hands with faces (wearing hats to hid hair) Part V- Rule out attentional differences by using “1-
to rule out possibility that FFA responds to hair, to any back task” (look for repetitions) for hands and faces!
biological stimuli, or to objects that have the same
structural description and differ only in metric properties!

R! L! R! L!

Fusiform Face Fusiform Face

Area (FFA)! Area (FFA)!
Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)! Kanwisher, McDermott, & Chun (1997)!

“In so far as a scientific

statement speaks about reality, PSC100Y
it must be falsifiable; and in so
far as it is not falsifiable, it does Introduction to Cognitive Psychology
not speak about reality.”!
!
Karl Popper!

•  This series of experiments shows an important thing about how

people do research on the mind and brain.!

•  One experiment doesn’t usually prove something like the FFA being
selective for faces.!

•  There may be some alternative theory that could explain the results.!
Perception 4-4!
•  Attempts at falsifying a theory are essential in science.!

•  Used brain stimulation to

provide evidence that a region
in the fusiform gyrus plays a
causal role in face perception.!
Research Participant!
“The subject was a 45-year-old
man implanted with intracranial
electrodes to localize the source
of medication-resistant seizures…!
Standard presurgical evaluation
revealed normal intellectual
abilities and visuospatial
functioning without any psychiatric
comorbidities or visual field
abnormalities.”!

Josef Parvizi!
http://neurology.stanford.edu/profiles/neurology/researcher/josef_parvizi!

Parvizi et al. (2012, Journal of Neuroscience)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
6

 Presurgery fMRI results from left Presurgery fMRI results from left Intracranial electrode sites and
inferior occipital-temporal region! inferior occipital-temporal region! selectivity for different stimuli!
•  Performed an fMRI session to find
regions of the fusiform gyrus that
showed greater activity for faces
than for other objects.!

•  Face-sensitive regions are shown

here as orang-ish blobs.!

Parvizi et al. (2012, Journal of Neuroscience)! Parvizi et al. (2012, Journal of Neuroscience)!

Stimulation of the FFA!

•  Parvizi passed an electrical
current into the brain through
electrodes that had face- Effects of Electrical Stimulation at Electrode Sites 1 and 2!
specific activity.!

•  The goal was to disrupt brain

activity in the region of the
brain right underneath the
electrode.!

•  They could then see if this

influenced the patient’s ability
to perceive faces.!

•  By disrupting that brain area

influences face perception, then
that would be evidence that
this area actually plays a causal
role in face perception.!

Parvizi et al. (2012, Journal of Neuroscience)! Parvizi et al. (2012, Journal of Neuroscience)!

PSC100Y Prosopagnosia!
Introduction to Cognitive Psychology
Back
of
Head!

Front
Inferi of
surfa or (ventr
ce of a Head!
the b l)
rain!

•  Lesions of the occipital-temporal junction can lead to difficulty

perceiving faces.!
Perception 4-5!
•  This disorder is called prosopagnosia.!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
7

 Apperceptive Prosopagnosia! Associative Prosopagnosia!

•  Apperceptive Prosopagnosia: low-level perceptual problem; someone •  Associative prosopagnosia: higher-order perceptual problem; people
with this disorder would report that these images look like jumbles of with this disorder would know that these are faces and could figure
features and wouldn’t be sure if they were faces and wouldn’t be able out that the one in the middle is a different person than the others,
to determine which two images show the face of the same person.! but wouldn’t be able to recognize them by their names.!

Acquired versus Congenital Lesion Site for Prosopagnosia!

Prosopagnosia! Lesion reconstruction in a
single patient!

•  When prosopagnosia is a result of brain damage, it is called L! R!

acquired prosopagnosia.!
Sorger et al (2007)!
•  Those that are born with it have congenital prosopagnosia.!
•  This image shows bilateral damage in a patient with
prosopagnosia.!

Lesion Site for Prosopagnosia! Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?!

Percent lesion overlap in a
group of 52 patients!
Next To!
Eye! Eye!

Above and Above and

to the Left! to the Right!
Nose!
Directly
Above!
Mouth!

L! R!
Almost all faces have the same structural description – the same basic
Bouvier & Engle (2006)! parts in the same categorically defined locations.!
!
We cannot use this kind of representation to discriminate among
faces.!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
8

 Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?!

•  Instead, we use the metric properties of faces to identify different

Martha Farah!
people – the exact sizes and shapes of the parts and relative http://www.psych.upenn.edu/

distances among them.! ~mfarah!

•  Dr. Farah had subjects do a face recognition task, and the

prosopagnosia patient performed much worse than control subjects.!

Farah et al (1994)!

Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?! PSC100Y

Introduction to Cognitive Psychology

Martha Farah!
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/
~mfarah!
•  Prosopagnosia patients were actually unimpaired at the eye glasses task that required
subordinate-level categorization.!

•  Concluded that prosopagnosia is a specific problem with face perception and not a
Perception 4-6!
general problem with using metric properties to perform subordinate-level
categorization.!
Farah et al (1994)!

Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?! Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?!

Expert, metric-based subordinate-level categorization! Expert, metric-based subordinate-level categorization!

1971 Dodge Charger!

•  Face perception is also something that involves enormous expertise.!

•  Perhaps prosopagnosia involves a problem with subordinate-level

categorization for categories of objects that we are highly
experienced at perceiving.! 1969 Dodge Charger!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
9

 Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?! Prosopagnosia: Specific to Faces?!
Expert, metric-based subordinate-level categorization! Expert, metric-based subordinate-level categorization!

House Finch! Australian zebra finch!

1971 Dodge Charger!

1969 Dodge Charger!

Faces or Expertise?! Faces or Expertise?!

•  Many researchers are interested in the more
Two individuals from
general question of whether face perception one family!
relies on a set of face-specific processing
mechanisms or instead relies on a more general
system for expert metric-based subordinate-level
categorization.!
Two individuals from
•  It’s difficult to rigorously test these theories with another family!
Isabel Gauthier!
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/
naturally occurring stimuli such as faces and cars.! Isabel Gauthier!
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/
psychological_sciences/bio/ psychological_sciences/bio/
isabel-gauthier! isabel-gauthier!
•  There are many differences between these types
of stimuli, and people who become car experts
may not be typical. ! Greebles!

•  So Isabel developed an approach in which she
trained people to become experts with artificial
stimuli called greebles.!
•  Greebles have same basic parts, but differ in metric properties.!
•  Subjects were trained over a period of several days to identify
greebles and group them into related families, which required them to
make subordinate-level category decisions.!

•  Fusiform gyrus was strongly

activated by faces in all three
subjects.! •  After training, all three subjects showed activation in the face area for the
greebles.!

•  However, there was no •  Greeble experts show a large N170 curve for both greebles and faces, whereas
activation for the greebles.! non-experts show a large N170 for faces but not greebles.!

•  Researchers concluded that face perception is not based on a face-specific

processing system.!

•  Relies on a more general system for expert, metric-based, subordinate-level

categorization.!
Gauthier et al (1999)! Gauthier et al (1999)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
10

 PSC100Y Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology
Introduction to Cognitive Psychology
✔!Architecture of the human mind!
Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Representations (format, persistence)!
Processing Steps / Algorithms!
Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
Differences among healthy individuals, across
development, and in disorders!
Real-world applications!
Perception 4-7!

Long-Term

The EPIC Model!

Memory Cognitive
Processor
Production Production Rule
Memory Interpreter
Simulated Auditory
Interaction Input
Devices
Auditory

Fusiform Face
Processor
Working

Visual
Memory
Area (FFA)!
Processor
Task
Environment Visual
Input
Ocular
Motor
Processor

Vocal Motor
Processor
Tactile
Processor

Manual
Motor
Processor

•  Kanwisher proposed that the FFA is specialized for face perception,

while others have proposed that it is specialized for expert, metric-
•  This model shows a single visual processing system; however,
based, subordinate-level categorization.!
research on perception has shown that this can be subdivided
even further.!
•  This is an example of how cognitive psychologists are trying to
understand the general organization of the visual system.!

Receptor Properties!
Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology

Architecture of the human mind!

✔!Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Representations (format, persistence)!
Processing Steps / Algorithms! Blue Green Red

Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!

Differences among healthy individuals, across Relative
development, and in disorders! Absorption

Real-world applications!

400 500 600 700

Wavelength (nm)

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
11

 Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology

Architecture of the human mind!

Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
✔!Representations (format, persistence)!
Processing Steps / Algorithms!
Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
Differences among healthy individuals, across
development, and in disorders!
Real-world applications!

Template Theories! Structural Description!

Theories! Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology
Template for "A" Template for "B"

T Architecture of the human mind!

Contains Contains Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Representations (format, persistence)!
Vertical Horizontal ✔!Processing Steps / Algorithms!
Line Line
Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
Differences among healthy individuals, across
Supports
development, and in disorders!
Bisects Real-world applications!

Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology

Knowledge!
Top-Down Processing!
Perception!
Architecture of the human mind!
Bottom-Up Processing! Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Sensory Inputs! Representations (format, persistence)!

Bayes’s Theorem! Processing Steps / Algorithms!

P(H|E) = P(H) x P(E|H)!
! ! P(E)!
✔!Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
Differences among healthy individuals, across
development, and in disorders!
Real-world applications!

Thomas Bayes (1701–1761)!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
12

 Receptor Properties!

Front of Head!
Blue Green Red

Relative
Absorption

400 500 600 700

Wavelength (nm) Allison et al. (1999)! Back of Head!

Lesion Site for Prosopagnosia!

Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology
Percent lesion overlap in a
group of 52 patients!

Architecture of the human mind!

Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Representations (format, persistence)!
Processing Steps / Algorithms!
Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
✔!Differences among healthy individuals, across
development, and in disorders! L! R!

Real-world applications!
Bouvier & Engle (2006)!

Key Issues in Cognitive Psychology

Architecture of the human mind!

Limits on human abilities (e.g., speed, capacity)!
Representations (format, persistence)!
Processing Steps / Algorithms!
Hardware (cognitive neuroscience)!
Differences among healthy individuals, across
development, and in disorders!
✔!Real-world applications!

© S. J. Luck

All rights reserved
13