Michael J. Tarr

Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition

How do we recognize objects despite differences in their retinal projections when they are seen at different orientations? Marr and Nishihara (1978) proposed that shapes are represented in memory as structural descriptions in objectcentered coordinate systems, so that an object is represented identically regardless of its orientation. An alternative hypothesis is that an object is represented in memory in a single representation corresponding to a canonical orientation, and a mental rotation operation transforms an input shape into that orientation before input and memory are compared. A third possibility is that shapes are stored in a set of representations, each corresponding to a different orientation. In four experiments, subjects studied several objects each at a single orientation, and were given extensive practice at naming them quickly, or at classifying them as normal or mirror-reversed, at several orientations. At first, response times increased with departure from the study orientation, with a slope similar to those obtained in classic mental rotation experiments. This suggests that subjects made both judgments by mentally transforming the orientation of the input shape to the one they had initially studied. With practice, subjects recognized the objects almost equally quickly at all the familiar orientations. At that point they were probed with the same objects appearing at novel orientations. Response times for these probes increased with increasing disparity from the previously trained orientations. This indicates that subjects had stored representations of the shapes at each of the practice orientations and recognized shapes at the new orientations by rotating them to one of the stored orientations. The results are consistent with a hybrid of the second (mental transformation) and third (multiple view) hypotheses of shape recognition: input shapes are transformed to a stored view, either the one at the nearest orientation or one at a canonical orientation. Interestingly, when mirrorimages of trained shapes were presented for naming, subjects took the same time at all orientations. This suggests that mental transformations of orientation can take the shortest path of rotation that will align an input shape and its memorized counterpart, in this case a rotation in depth about an axis in the picture

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.

Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex.

Event-related potential (ERP) studies of the human brain have shown that object categories can be reliably distinguished as early as 130-170 ms on the surface of occipito-temporal cortex, peaking at the level of the N170 component. Consistent with this finding, neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies suggest major functional distinctions within the human object recognition system, particularly in hemispheric advantage, between the processing of words (left), faces (right), and objects (bilateral). Given these observations, our aim was to (1) characterize the differential response properties of the N170 to pictures of faces, objects, and words across hemispheres; and (2) test whether an effect of inversion for highly familiar and monooriented nonface stimuli such as printed words can be observed at the level of the N170. Scalp EEG (53 channels) was recorded in 15 subjects performing an orientation decision task with pictures of faces, words, and cars presented upright or inverted. All three categories elicited at the same latency a robust N170 component associated with a positive counterpart at centro-frontal sites (vertex-positive potential, VPP). While there were minor amplitude differences at the level of the occipital medial P1 between linguistic and nonlinguistic categories, scalp topographies and source analyses indicated strong hemispheric and orientation effects starting at the level of the N170, which was right lateralized for faces, smaller and bilateral for cars, and as large for printed words in the left hemisphere as for faces. The entire N170/VPP complex was accounted for by two dipolar sources located in the lateral inferior occipital cortex/posterior fusiform gyrus. These two locations were roughly equivalent across conditions but differed in strength and lateralization. Inversion delayed the N170 (and VPP) response for all categories, with an increasing delay for cars, words, and faces, respectively, as suggested by source modeling analysis. Such results show that early processes in object recognition respond to category-specific visual information, and are associated with strong lateralization and orientation bias.

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.

Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects.

Successful object recognition is essential for finding food, identifying kin, and avoiding danger, as well as many other adaptive behaviors. To accomplish this feat, the visual system must reconstruct 3-D interpretations from 2-D “snapshots” falling on the retina. Theories of recognition address this process by focusing on the question of how object representations are encoded with respect to viewpoint. Although empirical evidence has been equivocal on this question, a growing body of surprising results, including those obtained in the experiments presented in this case study, indicates that recognition is often viewpoint dependent. Such findings reveal a prominent role for viewpointdependent mechanisms and provide support for themultiple-views approach, in which objects are encoded as a set of view-specific representations that are matched to percepts using normalization procedures.

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.

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.

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.

Expertise Training with Novel Objects Leads to Left-Lateralized Facelike Electrophysiological Responses

Scalp event-related potentials (ERPs) in humans indicate that face and object processing differ approximately 170 ms following stimulus presentation, at the point of the N170 occipitotemporal component. The N170 is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects. We tested whether this inversion effect reflects early mechanisms exclusive to faces or whether it generalizes to other stimuli as a function of visual expertise. ERPs to upright and inverted faces and novel objects (Greebles) were recorded in 10 participants before and after 2 weeks of expertise training with Greebles. The N170 component was observed for both faces and Greebles. The results are consistent with previous reports in that the N170 was delayed and enhanced for inverted faces at recording sites in both hemispheres. For Greebles, the same effect of inversion was observed only for experts, primarily in the left hemisphere. These results suggest that the mechanisms underlying the electrophysiological face-inversion effect extend to visually homogeneous nonface object categories, at least in the left hemisphere, but only when such mechanisms are recruited by expertise.