Review
The many faces of configural processing

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Adults’ expertise in recognizing faces has been attributed to configural processing. We distinguish three types of configural processing: detecting the first-order relations that define faces (i.e. two eyes above a nose and mouth), holistic processing (glueing the features together into a gestalt), and processing second-order relations (i.e. the spacing among features). We provide evidence for their separability based on behavioral marker tasks, their sensitivity to experimental manipulations, and their patterns of development. We note that inversion affects each type of configural processing, not just sensitivity to second-order relations, and we review evidence on whether configural processing is unique to faces.

Section snippets

Sensitivity to first-order relations

Adults have a remarkable ability to detect faces based on first-order relations, even in the absence of normal facial features, at least when the stimuli are upright (see Fig. 1) 2., 3.. Indeed, faces can play a special role in capturing attention. Newborns orient preferentially towards stimuli that have face-like first-order relations 4., 5. (but there are alternative explanations [6]), and patients with visual extinction are more likely to detect a face presented in the neglected hemifield

Holistic processing

When adults detect the first-order relations of a face, they tend to process the stimulus as a gestalt, making it harder to process individual features. The most convincing demonstration is the ‘composite face effect’. Subjects are slower and less accurate in recognizing the top half of one face presented in a composite with the bottom half of another face when the composite is upright and fused than when the composite is inverted or the two halves are offset laterally – manipulations that

Sensitivity to second-order relations

Because all faces share the same first-order relations, recognition of individual faces requires the encoding of information about subtle variations in the shape or spacing of the features. Second-order relations refer to the spatial distances among internal features [8] (e.g. the distance between the eyes). Adults can detect variations in these distances as small as one minute of visual angle, a value close to the limits of acuity [40].

To tap processing of second-order relations, a set of

Lessons from inversion

Although the effect of inversion typically is attributed to disruptions in detecting second-order relations 1., 49., we have noted that inversion of a face interferes with all three types of configural processing. Inversion delays the N170 (e.g. [9]) and increases fMRI activity in object regions 11., 20., presumably because of increased difficulty in detecting the first-order relations of a face. It mitigates both the composite face effect [30] and the part–whole recognition effect [33] that

Is configural processing unique to faces?

Although many researchers argue that configural processing is unique to faces, others suggest that it is used with other categories of objects, particularly if, like faces, the objects are homogeneous and the viewer has developed expertise in distinguishing individual members at the subordinate level. Most of the evidence is based on the inversion effect, which, as noted previously, is an inadequate diagnostic. For example, dog judges and breeders, but not novices, are less accurate in

Questions for future research

  • To what extent do the different types of configural face processing reflect distinct versus overlapping neural mechanisms? Do they vary in lateralization?

  • To what extent are the different types of configural face processing hierarchical? For example, does holistic processing follow and depend upon detection of first-order facial relations – both developmentally and within each instance of perceiving a face?

  • What are the contributions of each type of configural processing to deficits in face

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a National Science and Engineering (Canada) research grant to D.M. and a National Science and Engineering graduate scholarship to R.Le G. The second and third authors contributed equally to the manuscript and are listed in alphabetical order.

References (60)

  • J.W. Tanaka et al.

    A neural basis for expert object recognition

    Psychol. Sci.

    (2001)
  • R.K. Yin

    Looking at upside-down faces

    J. Exp. Psychol.

    (1969)
  • M. Moscovitch

    What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (1997)
  • N. Kanwisher

    The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area

    Cognition

    (1998)
  • M.H. Johnson

    Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline

    Cognition

    (1991)
  • F. Simion

    The origins of face perception: specific versus non-specific mechanisms

    Infant Child Dev.

    (2001)
  • P. Vuilleumier

    Faces call for attention: evidence from patients with visual extinction

    Neuropsychologia

    (2000)
  • R. Diamond et al.

    Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise

    J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.

    (1986)
  • S. Bentin

    Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (1996)
  • B. Rossion

    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

    NeuroReport

    (2000)
  • G.K. Aguirre

    Stimulus inversion and the responses of face and object-sensitive cortical areas

    NeuroReport

    (1999)
  • J.V. Haxby

    Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex

    Science

    (2001)
  • G. McCarthy

    Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (1997)
  • U. Hasson

    Vase or face? A neural correlate of shape-selective grouping processes in the human brain

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (2001)
  • S. Bentin

    Priming visual face-processing mechanisms: electrophysiological evidence

    Psychol. Sci.

    (2002)
  • I. Gautier

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

    Nat. Neurosci.

    (2000)
  • A. Freire

    The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence

    Perception

    (2000)
  • R. Le Grand

    Early visual experience and face processing

    Nature 410 890 Correction: Nature

    (2001)
  • J.V. Haxby

    The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception

    Neuron

    (1999)
  • B. Rossion

    Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: an event-related potentials study

    Biol. Psychol.

    (1999)
  • Cited by (1716)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text