Isabel Gauthier

Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition

Expertise with unfamiliar objects (‘greebles’) recruits face-selective areas in the fusiform gyrus (FFA) and occipital lobe (OFA). Here we extend this finding to other homogeneous categories. Bird and car experts were tested with functional magnetic resonance imaging during tasks with faces, familiar objects, cars and birds. Homogeneous categories activated the FFA more than familiar objects. Moreover, the right FFA and OFA showed significant expertise effects. An independent behavioral test of expertise predicted relative activation in the right FFA for birds versus cars within each group. The results suggest that level of categorization and expertise, rather than superficial properties of objects, determine the specialization of the FFA.

The Fusiform Face Area is Part of a Network that Processes Faces at the Individual Level

According to modular models of cortical organization, many areas of the extrastriate cortex are dedicated to object categories. These models often assume an early processing stage for the detection of category membership. Can functional imaging isolate areas responsible for detection of members of a category, such as faces or letters? We consider whether responses in three different areas (two selective for faces and one selective for letters) support category detection. Activity in these areas habituates to the repeated presentation of one exemplar more than to the presentation of different exemplars of the same category, but only for the category for which the area is selective. Thus, these areas appear to play computational roles more complex than detection, processing stimuli at the individual level. Drawing from prior work, we suggest that face-selective areas may be involved in the perception of faces at the individual level, whereas letter-selective regions may be tuning themselves to font information in order to recognize letters more efficiently.

The N170 occipito-temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face-specific processes in the human brain.

Behavioral studies have shown that picture-plane inversion impacts face and object recognition differently, thereby suggesting face-specific processing mechanisms in the human brain. Here we used event-related potentials to investigate the time course of this behavioral inversion effect in both faces and novel objects. ERPs were recorded for 14 subjects presented with upright and inverted visual categories, including human faces and novel objects (Greebles). A N170 was obtained for all categories of stimuli, including Greebles. However, only inverted faces delayed and enhanced N170 (bilaterally). These observations indicate that the N170 is not specific to faces, as has been previously claimed. In addition, the amplitude difference between faces and objects does not reflect face-specific mechanisms since it can be smaller than between non-face object categories. There do exist some early differences in the time-course of categorization for faces and non-faces across inversion. This may be attributed either to stimulus category per se (e.g. face-specific mechanisms) or to differences in the level of expertise between these categories.

FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise.

Much evidence suggests that the fusiform face area is involved in face processing. In contrast to the accompanying article by Kanwisher, we conclude that the apparent face selectivity of this area reflects a more generalized form of processing not intrinsically specific to faces.

Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior.

Behavioral sensitivity to object transformations and the response to novel objects (Greebles) in the fusiform face area (FFA) was measured several times during expertise training. Sensitivity to 3 transformations increased with expertise: (a) configural changes in which halves of objects were misaligned, (b) configural changes in which some of the object parts were moved, and (c) the substitution of an object part with a part from a different object. The authors found that holistic-configural effects can arise from object representations that are differentiated in terms of features or parts. Moreover, a holistic-inclusive effect was correlated with changes in the right FFA. Face recognition may not be unique in its reliance on holistic processing, measured in terms of both behavior and brain activation.

Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing

The perception of faces and of nonface objects share common early visual processing stages. Some argue, however, that the brain eventually processes faces separately from other objects, within a domain-specific module dedicated to face perception. This apparent specialization for faces could, alternatively, result from peoples expertise with this category of stimuli. Here we used behavioral and electrophysiological measures of interference to address the functional independence of face and object processing. If the expert processing of faces and cars depend on common mechanisms related to holistic perception (obligatory processing of all parts), then for human subjects who are presumed to be face experts, car perception should interfere with concurrent face perception. Furthermore, such interference should increase with greater expertise in car identification, and indeed this is what we found. Event-related potentials (ERPs) suggest that this interference arose from perceptual processes contributing to the holistic processing of both objects of expertise and faces.

How does the brain process upright and inverted faces

The face inversion effect (FIE) is defined as the larger decrease in recognition performance for faces than for other mono-oriented objects when they are presented upside down. Behavioral studies suggest the FIE takes place at the perceptual encoding stage and is mainly due to the decrease in ability to extract relational information when discriminating individual faces. Recently, functional magnetic resonance imaging and scalp event-related potentials studies found that turning faces upside down slightly but significantly decreases the response of face-selective brain regions, including the so-called fusiform face area (FFA), and increases activity of other areas selective for nonface objects. Face inversion leads to a significantly delayed (sometimes larger) N170 component, an occipito-temporal scalp potential associated with the perceptual encoding of faces and objects. These modulations are in agreement with the perceptual locus of the FIE and reinforce the view that the FFA and N170 are sensitive to individual face discrimination.

Can Face Recognition Really be Dissociated from Object Recognition

We argue that the current literature on prosopagnosia fails to demonstrate unequivocal evidence for a disproportionate impairment for faces as compared to nonface objects. Two prosopagnosic subjects were tested for the discrimination of objects from several categories (face as well as nonface) at different levels of categorization (basic, subordinate, and exemplar levels). Several dependent measures were obtained including accuracy, signal detection measures, and response times. The results from Experiments 1 to 4 demonstrate that, in simultaneous-matching tasks, response times may reveal impairments with nonface objects in subjects whose error rates only indicate a face deficit. The results from Experiments 5 and 6 show that, given limited stimulus presentation times for face and nonface objects, the same subjects may demonstrate a decit for both stimulus categories in sensitivity. In Experiments 7, 8 and 9, a match-to-sample task that places greater demands on memory led to comparable recognition sensitivity with both face and nonface objects. Regardless of object category, the prosopagnosic subjects were more affected by manipulations of the level of categorization than normal controls. This result raises questions regarding neuropsychological evidence for the modularity of face recognition, as well as its theoretical and methodological foundations.

Visual object understanding

Visual object understanding includes processes at the nexus of visual perception and visual cognition. A traditional approach separates questions that are more associated with perception — how are objects represented by high-level vision — from questions that are more associated with cognition — how are objects identified, categorized and remembered. However, to understand the bridge between perception and cognition, it is fruitful to abandon any sharp distinction between perceptual and cognitive aspects of visual object understanding. We provide a selective review of research from both the Object Recognition and Perceptual Categorization literatures, highlighting relevant behavioural, neuropsychological, neurophysiological and theoretical research into the representations and processes that underlie visual object understanding in humans and primates.

Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework.

Studies of perceptual expertise typically ask whether the mechanisms underlying face recognition are domain specific or domain general. This debate has so dominated the literature that it has masked the more general usefulness of the expertise framework for studying the phenomenon of category specialization. Here we argue that the value of an expertise framework is not solely dependent on its relevance to face recognition. Beyond offering an alternative to domain-specific accounts of face specialization in terms of interactions between experience, task demands, and neural biases, expertise studies reveal principles of perceptual learning that apply to many different domains and forms of expertise. As such the expertise framework provides a unique window onto the functional plasticity of the mind and brain.