非面孔物体识别倒置效应
|
摘要
人类对物体识别存在着整体布局加上与特征侦察(或称局部特征识别)两种加工方式,对不同种类物体识别时的加工方式是否一样,何种因素对物体识别加工方式选择起着决定性作用等问题是物体识别领域研究者关注的焦点。对这些问题的探讨,几十年来,大量的研究往往采用一个最基本的操作范式:倒置呈现范式,通过对比不同刺激材料识别时是否产生倒置效应来推断被试识别此刺激材料时采用何种加工方式。倒置效应最初源于面孔物体识别领域,研究发现与普通物体识别相比,面孔物体倒置呈现时,被试识别时变得异常困难,表现出识别成绩显著下降,面孔物体识别存在倒置效应现象被大量研究所证实。
最初的研究主要利用不同种类物体作为实验材料进行识别加工方式对比,结果发现物体识别倒置效应现象为面孔物体所特有,表现出面孔识别加工方式特异性(face-specificprocessing),整体布局加工只存在于面孔物体。然而,近年来一系列新的证据对面孔识别特异性加工提出质疑,物体识别倒置效应陆续出现在被试辨别人身体姿势静态图片和身体姿势运动光点图时、养狗专家对狗图片识别时、经过专门训练的Greeble识别专家识别Greeble时利经过专门训练的被试识别房子时,这些结果表明普通物体识别也存在整体布局加工。因而,Reed等人试图提出整体布局加工连续量假设(configural processing continuum hypothesis)理论来整合所有物体识别加工方式。但是,当前此理论仍缺少有力的证据支持,尤其缺少一种理论能够很好地解释出为何有的物体识别存在倒置效应现象而有的物体识别却不存在倒置效应现象。
基于此,本研究选择了三种物理属性上高度相似,又紧密联系的物体:身体姿势、人手姿势、人造物体Dongle作为实验材料,对物体识别倒置效应产生原因和物体识别加工方式进行深入研究。对被试来说,对这三类物体的直立状态体验程度与其倒置状态体验程度两者之间差异大小存在显著不同。在日常生活中,从物体直立状态或倒置状态体验机会多少来分析:直立状态身体姿势和倒置状态身体姿势之间体验程度差异量＞直立状态人手姿势和倒置状态人手姿势之间体验程度差异量＞直立状态人造新异物体Dongle和倒置状态人造新异物体Dongle之间体验程度差异量。具体来说,人手姿势体验最具特殊性,处于身体姿势和Dongle之间,因为直立状态和倒置状态人手姿势,被试在日常生活中都有所体验,因而直立状态和倒置状态人手姿势之间经历程度差异较小。对于身体姿势来说,被试在日常生活中只能体验到直立状态,很少或从来没有体验过倒置状态身体姿势,因而直立状态和倒置状态身体姿势之间经历程度差异较大。然而,对于人造新异物体Dongle来说,被试在日常生活中根本无法体验其直立状态和倒置状态,也无从辨别哪个方向是直立状态,那个方向是倒置状态,因而直立状态和倒置状态Dongle经历程度没有差异。因此,此三类物体如果在实验结果上有何不同可以归结为物体特定方向体验程度存在差异而导致的,同时根据此三类物体产生倒置效应与否来推断被试识别时采用何种加工方式。
本论文第一个研究专题采用身体姿势作为实验材料,在实验一中采用控制身体姿势呈现重复次数和眼动追踪设备来进一步考察身体姿势识别倒置效应。被试的任务是比较先后呈现的两个身体姿势是否相同。结果发现直立状态身体识别成绩显著好于倒置状态身体姿势识别成绩(倒置效应),并且此倒置效应从第一组试验结果中就已显现,从而表明身体姿势识别倒置效应并非是由于身体姿势在本实验中多次重复呈现引起的。从身体姿势识别倒置效应中我们推断被试对直立状态身体采用整体布局加工利未经人为训练的被试对直立状态身体姿势识别是专家识别。眼动追踪兴趣区分析结果显示直立状态身体姿势识别,被试注视点76%都集中在身体姿势上部,而倒置状态身体姿势识别被试注视点59.7%集中在身体姿势上部,再结合首个注视点注视时间和注视点数量分析结果,我们认为被试对倒置状态身体姿势识别时加工关键信息效率降低,但仍然表现出与直立身体姿势识别保持相同的关键信息区域(身体姿势上部),这个结果表明直立状态身体姿势与倒置状态身体姿势识别加工方式差异并非是本质上的变化,而是量的变化。
实验二中两个实验对身体姿势实验材料作进一步控制,探讨身体姿势识别倒置效应是否由于干扰变量,即身体姿势中面孔信息或头部信息导致。结果发现身体姿势实验材料不管是遮盖面孔还是去除头部,被试识别时都出现了显著的倒置效应,从而表明身体姿势识别是由身体姿势本身而导致的,并非由这些干扰变量而导致。实验三采用10迫选1辨别任务,探讨身体姿势识别倒置效应是否具有跨任务一致性。结果发现在此任务条件下身体姿势识别产生了更大的倒置效应,从而表明在此任务中直立状态身体姿势识别中,被试更多地依赖整体布局加工。实验四系统地操纵了身体姿势偏离标准角度(直立状态身体姿势)的程度,结果发现被试识别成绩随着偏离身体姿势标准角度的增加而逐渐降低,表现出身体姿势识别成绩与其对各个角度体验的经历程度存在线性关系,也表明直立身体姿势和倒置身体姿势识别加工方式差异是量上变化,并非本质上的变化。
本论文第二个研究专题采用人手姿势作为实验材料,在实验五中我们采用控制人手姿势呈现重复次数和眼动追踪设备来考察人手姿势识别是否存在倒置效应现象。结果发现从第一组到第三组人手姿势识别均没有出现反应时倒置效应,然而生理机制上可能人手姿势识别反应时在第四组和第五组出现倒置效应,同时生理机制上不可能人手姿势识别反应时在第五组出现反应时倒置效应。眼动追踪结果显示人手姿势倒置呈现后,与直立状态人手体姿势相比被试识别时加工关键信息效率并没有出现显著的降低,并且表现出与直立状态人手姿势识别时相同的关键信息区域(注视点84.1%都集中于人手姿势上部),首个注视点注视时间和注视点数量均没有表现出倒置效应。此实验反应时结果演示出从无倒置效应到有倒置效应过程,也即演示了对直立状态人手姿势识别从特征侦察为主过渡到以整体布局加工为主。实验六采用多次重复测试方式探讨实验五最后出现的人手姿势识别倒置效应是否稳定。结果发现人手姿势识别倒置效应产生后,这种倒置效应在第二天和第三天的实验结果中基本保持稳定。实验七采用5迫选1辨别任务,结果发现此任务产生了更大的人手姿势识别倒置效应,并且从第一组开始就出现了人手姿势识别倒置效应。实验八采用训练测试方式,增加被试对直立状态或倒置状态人手姿势体验程度。结果发现被试人手姿势识别产生了基于特定训练方向上的倒置效应。
本论文第三个研究专题采用人造新异的无意义物体Dongle和Lingle作为实验材料。实验九采用多次重复测试方式,测试被试对直立状态Dongle物体和倒置状态Dongle物体识别,或者对直立状态Lingle物体和倒置状态Lingle物体识别,观察此实验结果是否像身体姿势或人手姿势识别一程自动出现倒置效应。结果发现五天的重复测试均没有出现倒置效应,进而从反向验证了特定角度体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性因素。实验十采用训练测试方式,在训练阶段,只对被试进行直立状态Dongle或倒置状态Dongle测试,结果发现在后测中被试对Dongle识别均产生了基于特定训练方向上的倒置效应。研究三利用人造物体模拟出了身体姿势识别倒置效应,进一步验证了特定方向体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性原因。
综合三个研究结果,我们发现未受训练的被试对三类物体(身体姿势、人手姿势和新异物体Dongle)识别自然演示了从有显著倒置效应无倒置效应的连续量,从而表明未受人为训练的被试是根据其经历选择完成实验任务最合适的识别加工方式。经过特定方向训练的被试,识别人手姿势或Dongle物体时均出现了倒置效应,表明物体识别加工方式并非一成不变的,而是受其经历影响,灵活地运用特征侦察或整体布局加工。身体姿势识别眼动追踪结果也发现了与反应时相一致的倒置效应,兴趣区分析结果表明直立状态和倒置状态物体识别加工方式并非本质上差异。
整个研究首次从特定角度体验程度存在差异这个视角对物体识别倒置效应产生原因进行系统地探讨,实验结果表明物体识别倒置效应并非面孔物体所独用,普通物体识别也存在倒置效应,物体特定角度体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性因素。普通物体识别依据特定方向体验差异程度选择加工方式,表现出从特征侦察到整体布局加工连续体。基于整个研究结果,我们提出了特定角度体验程度与物体识别加工方式选择关系模型,以及更为完善的整体布局加工连续量理论,以这两个理论对整个实验结果加以解释。
There are two types of cognitive processes in human object recognition: configural processing and feature detection (or local property detection). Are different types of objects recognized by the same process? What factors played decisive roles in the selection of the type of process? All these questions are the focuses of research in the field. In the past several decades, a larger number of studies in this field have used a basic paradigm: an upside-down paradigm. By comparing the recognition performance of the stimulus presented in upright and upside-down orientation, researchers make inference on the types of process employed when they recognized these objects. When the recognition performance is worse when stimulus is presented in the upside-down orientation than upright orientation, an inversion effect is shown. Inversion effect was first discovered in face recognition. Many studies have demonstrated face presented upside-down was more difficult to be recognized by participants than upright face.
Using different types of objects as stimuli, the previous researches found that inversion effect only appeared in face recognition, not in common objects. The results indicate a face-specific processing and the configural processing specified in face recognition. However, in recent years, a series of new evidence questioned the face-specific processing theory, because inversion effect also emerged in the recognition of some common objects. For instance, inversion effect was shown when ordinary observers identified static picture of body posture and point-light body movements, when dog experts identified pictures of dog, and when trained participants identified Greeble objects or picture of houses. These results suggested that inversion effect wasn't specific to face and configural processing also existed in common object recognition. Therefore, Reed and her colleagues proposed a configural processing continuum theory to interpret large number of studies on object recognition. But, this theory lacks strong supporting evidence. In particular, there is no theory which can explain why inversion effect showed in some kinds of object recognition, not in others.
In the current project, in order to further investigate the mechanism of inversion effect, we used three types of objects: body posture, hand posture and man-made novel object-Dongle. These three types of objects are highly similar in physical properties. Using these objects we manipulated the difference in the degree of experience between upright and inverted exposure of these three kinds of object: the difference of exposure between upright body posture and inverted body posture > the difference of exposure between upright hand posture and inverted hand posture > the difference of exposure between upright man-made novel Dongle object and inverted man-made novel Dongle object. Specifically, the posture of hand is very unique, compared to the posture of body and Dongles. In daily life, average participants have much more opportunity to experience both upright hand posture and inverted hand posture, so the difference of exposure between upright hand posture and inverted hand posture is small. For the posture of body, the average participants have more opportunities of experiencing upright body posture, with less opportunity to experience inverted body posture in daily life, so the difference of experience degree between upright and inverted body posture is larger. However, the average participants never have opportunity of experience the man-made novel Dongle object in daily life, so they don't even know which direction of Dongle is upright and which direction of Dongle is inverted, the difference of exposure between upright Dongle and inverted Dongle is zero. Therefore, if there are any different results among these three types of object recognition, we can attribute them to the difference in exposure between upright and inverted orientation among the three kinds of objects. Meanwhile, we may also gain knowledge on which process the participant employed through whether the inversion effect exists when they recognize these three kinds of objects.
In the first study, we used posture of bodies as stimuli. In order to investigate whether body posture recognition demonstrates inversion effect, we controlled the presentation repetition times of body posture and use eye-tracking technique. In Expl, the participants were asked to judge whether sequentially presented two body postures were same or different. The result showed that the upright posture of body was recognized more quickly and accurately than inverted posture of body (inversion effect). The inversion effect appears in the result of the first block of test. These results indicate that body inversion effect did not resulted from repeating presentations. The result of fixation interest area analysis showed that 76 % fixations concentrated on upper body position when participants recognized upright body posture and 59.7% fixations concentrating on upper body position when participants recognized inverted body posture. Combined with the results of the initial fixation duration and numbers of fixation, the results suggest that the efficiency of processing the key information declined greatly when participant recognized inverted body posture, but it still showed the same key information area with upright body posture recognition. The eye-tracking data also suggested that it was a quantitative change of process when upright body posture was recognized compared to inverted body posture was recognized, instead of a qualitative change.
In experiment 2, we further controlled the stimuli of body posture in order to explore whether the face or head in body posture led to body inversion effect. The result showed the inversion effect still existed when participant recognized the stimuli of using a black ellipse covered the face part of body posture or removing the head part of body posture. It suggests that it was the body posture itself that led to body inversion effect, instead of face or head. In experiment 3, in order to investigate whether body inversion effect exist in different task, we adopted 10-forced-choice-l task, which indentified more dependent on exemplar level by participants The results showed larger inversion effect in this task compare to the earlier experiment using same-different task. It suggests participants were more dependent on configural processing in this task when they recognized upright body posture. In Experiment 4, we systematically manipulated the degree of deviation from canonical view of the body posture (upright body posture), and found that the performance for recognizing body postures declined with increasing the deviation from the upright body. It shows there was a linear relationship between performance of recognizing body posture and the degree of experience of different view of body posture in picture plane. It suggests it was a quantitative change of processing when upright body posture was recognized compared to inverted body posture was recognized, instead of a qualitative change.
In the second study, we used posture of hands as stimuli. In Experiment 5, in order to explore whether hand posture recognition showed inversion effect, we controlled the times of presentation of hand posture and use eye-tracking technique, and the participants were asked to judge whether sequential presentations of two hand postures were same or different. From block 1 to block3, the result did not show inversion effect in reaction time. In contrast, the biomechamcally possible hand postures in block 4 and block 5 and the biomechanical impossible hand postures in block 5 showed inversion effect in reaction time. Eye-tracking data did not show inversion effect. Participant's processing efficiency did not decline when they recognized inverted hand posture. The fixation interest area mainly centered on upper parts of hand for both upright hand posture and inverted hand posture recognition. The initial fixation duration and number of fixation did not show inversion effect. The results of reaction time of experiment 5 ranged from no robust inversion effect to significant inversion effect, which suggested a range of performance from initial mainly depending on feature detection to eventually mainly depending on configural process. In Experiment 6, we adopted repeated tests to investigate whether hand inversion effect stabilized or not. The result showed that the inversion effect remained stable in day 2 and day3 of the tests. In Experiment 7, we used 5-forced-choice-1 task to further explore hand posture inversion effect. The result showed larger inversion effect in this task and emerge inversion effect at first block. In experiment 8, we adopted training program, increasing the degree of experience of upright hand or inverted hand. The result showed that hand inversion effect was based on trained direction.
In the third study, we used man-made novel meaningless Dongle and Lingle objects as stimuli. In experiment 9, participants were asked to judge whether sequential presenting two Dongles or Lingles were the same or different, and observe whether the results automatically showed inversion effect like body posture recognition and hand posture recognition did. The results of the five-day test did not show any inversion effect, these results suggested that the difference of degree of experience between upright object and inverted object led to inversion effect from the reverse perspective. In Experiment 10, we used training program, participants were tested only in upright Dongle or in inverted Dongle in training-test stage, then were tested in both upright Dongle or inverted Dongle in post-testing stage. The results showed Dongle inversion effect based on trained direction. This result simulated the body inversion effect and indicated that the difference of experience degree between upright object and inverted object lead to inversion effect
To sum up the result of all the three studies, the results demonstrated a continuum from strong inversion effect to little inversion effect when untrained subjects recognized these three types of object (body posture, hand posture and man-made novel Dongle objects). This suggests that untrained subjects chose appropriate process to complete the recognition task depending on their experience received in daily life. Training participants to experience a specific direction of hand posture or Dongle also led to inversion effect, which suggests the processing method is changeable, both configural processing and feature detection can be selected depending on the past experience. The results of eye-tracking data also showed inversion effect, which was consistent with the result of reaction time, and result of interest area suggests it is not a qualitative change, but quantitative change between upright object processing and inverted object processing.
This project represents the first study to examine object recognition through manipulation of the difference in the degree of experience between upright object and inverted object. The result indicates the inversion effect is not specific to face recognition, and common object recognition can also lead to inversion effect. The difference of exposure among object viewpoint in daily life led to object inversion effect. Participants choose method of processing based on their experience when they recognize objects. The results of the whole series of studies demonstrate a continuum from configural processing to feature detection. In order to explain all the results, we propose a theory of interaction among a few factors including the degree of exposure for specific object viewpoint, inversion effect, and type of recognition process. We also provide a revision of the present configural processing continuum theory.
最初的研究主要利用不同种类物体作为实验材料进行识别加工方式对比,结果发现物体识别倒置效应现象为面孔物体所特有,表现出面孔识别加工方式特异性(face-specificprocessing),整体布局加工只存在于面孔物体。然而,近年来一系列新的证据对面孔识别特异性加工提出质疑,物体识别倒置效应陆续出现在被试辨别人身体姿势静态图片和身体姿势运动光点图时、养狗专家对狗图片识别时、经过专门训练的Greeble识别专家识别Greeble时利经过专门训练的被试识别房子时,这些结果表明普通物体识别也存在整体布局加工。因而,Reed等人试图提出整体布局加工连续量假设(configural processing continuum hypothesis)理论来整合所有物体识别加工方式。但是,当前此理论仍缺少有力的证据支持,尤其缺少一种理论能够很好地解释出为何有的物体识别存在倒置效应现象而有的物体识别却不存在倒置效应现象。
基于此,本研究选择了三种物理属性上高度相似,又紧密联系的物体:身体姿势、人手姿势、人造物体Dongle作为实验材料,对物体识别倒置效应产生原因和物体识别加工方式进行深入研究。对被试来说,对这三类物体的直立状态体验程度与其倒置状态体验程度两者之间差异大小存在显著不同。在日常生活中,从物体直立状态或倒置状态体验机会多少来分析:直立状态身体姿势和倒置状态身体姿势之间体验程度差异量＞直立状态人手姿势和倒置状态人手姿势之间体验程度差异量＞直立状态人造新异物体Dongle和倒置状态人造新异物体Dongle之间体验程度差异量。具体来说,人手姿势体验最具特殊性,处于身体姿势和Dongle之间,因为直立状态和倒置状态人手姿势,被试在日常生活中都有所体验,因而直立状态和倒置状态人手姿势之间经历程度差异较小。对于身体姿势来说,被试在日常生活中只能体验到直立状态,很少或从来没有体验过倒置状态身体姿势,因而直立状态和倒置状态身体姿势之间经历程度差异较大。然而,对于人造新异物体Dongle来说,被试在日常生活中根本无法体验其直立状态和倒置状态,也无从辨别哪个方向是直立状态,那个方向是倒置状态,因而直立状态和倒置状态Dongle经历程度没有差异。因此,此三类物体如果在实验结果上有何不同可以归结为物体特定方向体验程度存在差异而导致的,同时根据此三类物体产生倒置效应与否来推断被试识别时采用何种加工方式。
本论文第一个研究专题采用身体姿势作为实验材料,在实验一中采用控制身体姿势呈现重复次数和眼动追踪设备来进一步考察身体姿势识别倒置效应。被试的任务是比较先后呈现的两个身体姿势是否相同。结果发现直立状态身体识别成绩显著好于倒置状态身体姿势识别成绩(倒置效应),并且此倒置效应从第一组试验结果中就已显现,从而表明身体姿势识别倒置效应并非是由于身体姿势在本实验中多次重复呈现引起的。从身体姿势识别倒置效应中我们推断被试对直立状态身体采用整体布局加工利未经人为训练的被试对直立状态身体姿势识别是专家识别。眼动追踪兴趣区分析结果显示直立状态身体姿势识别,被试注视点76%都集中在身体姿势上部,而倒置状态身体姿势识别被试注视点59.7%集中在身体姿势上部,再结合首个注视点注视时间和注视点数量分析结果,我们认为被试对倒置状态身体姿势识别时加工关键信息效率降低,但仍然表现出与直立身体姿势识别保持相同的关键信息区域(身体姿势上部),这个结果表明直立状态身体姿势与倒置状态身体姿势识别加工方式差异并非是本质上的变化,而是量的变化。
实验二中两个实验对身体姿势实验材料作进一步控制,探讨身体姿势识别倒置效应是否由于干扰变量,即身体姿势中面孔信息或头部信息导致。结果发现身体姿势实验材料不管是遮盖面孔还是去除头部,被试识别时都出现了显著的倒置效应,从而表明身体姿势识别是由身体姿势本身而导致的,并非由这些干扰变量而导致。实验三采用10迫选1辨别任务,探讨身体姿势识别倒置效应是否具有跨任务一致性。结果发现在此任务条件下身体姿势识别产生了更大的倒置效应,从而表明在此任务中直立状态身体姿势识别中,被试更多地依赖整体布局加工。实验四系统地操纵了身体姿势偏离标准角度(直立状态身体姿势)的程度,结果发现被试识别成绩随着偏离身体姿势标准角度的增加而逐渐降低,表现出身体姿势识别成绩与其对各个角度体验的经历程度存在线性关系,也表明直立身体姿势和倒置身体姿势识别加工方式差异是量上变化,并非本质上的变化。
本论文第二个研究专题采用人手姿势作为实验材料,在实验五中我们采用控制人手姿势呈现重复次数和眼动追踪设备来考察人手姿势识别是否存在倒置效应现象。结果发现从第一组到第三组人手姿势识别均没有出现反应时倒置效应,然而生理机制上可能人手姿势识别反应时在第四组和第五组出现倒置效应,同时生理机制上不可能人手姿势识别反应时在第五组出现反应时倒置效应。眼动追踪结果显示人手姿势倒置呈现后,与直立状态人手体姿势相比被试识别时加工关键信息效率并没有出现显著的降低,并且表现出与直立状态人手姿势识别时相同的关键信息区域(注视点84.1%都集中于人手姿势上部),首个注视点注视时间和注视点数量均没有表现出倒置效应。此实验反应时结果演示出从无倒置效应到有倒置效应过程,也即演示了对直立状态人手姿势识别从特征侦察为主过渡到以整体布局加工为主。实验六采用多次重复测试方式探讨实验五最后出现的人手姿势识别倒置效应是否稳定。结果发现人手姿势识别倒置效应产生后,这种倒置效应在第二天和第三天的实验结果中基本保持稳定。实验七采用5迫选1辨别任务,结果发现此任务产生了更大的人手姿势识别倒置效应,并且从第一组开始就出现了人手姿势识别倒置效应。实验八采用训练测试方式,增加被试对直立状态或倒置状态人手姿势体验程度。结果发现被试人手姿势识别产生了基于特定训练方向上的倒置效应。
本论文第三个研究专题采用人造新异的无意义物体Dongle和Lingle作为实验材料。实验九采用多次重复测试方式,测试被试对直立状态Dongle物体和倒置状态Dongle物体识别,或者对直立状态Lingle物体和倒置状态Lingle物体识别,观察此实验结果是否像身体姿势或人手姿势识别一程自动出现倒置效应。结果发现五天的重复测试均没有出现倒置效应,进而从反向验证了特定角度体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性因素。实验十采用训练测试方式,在训练阶段,只对被试进行直立状态Dongle或倒置状态Dongle测试,结果发现在后测中被试对Dongle识别均产生了基于特定训练方向上的倒置效应。研究三利用人造物体模拟出了身体姿势识别倒置效应,进一步验证了特定方向体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性原因。
综合三个研究结果,我们发现未受训练的被试对三类物体(身体姿势、人手姿势和新异物体Dongle)识别自然演示了从有显著倒置效应无倒置效应的连续量,从而表明未受人为训练的被试是根据其经历选择完成实验任务最合适的识别加工方式。经过特定方向训练的被试,识别人手姿势或Dongle物体时均出现了倒置效应,表明物体识别加工方式并非一成不变的,而是受其经历影响,灵活地运用特征侦察或整体布局加工。身体姿势识别眼动追踪结果也发现了与反应时相一致的倒置效应,兴趣区分析结果表明直立状态和倒置状态物体识别加工方式并非本质上差异。
整个研究首次从特定角度体验程度存在差异这个视角对物体识别倒置效应产生原因进行系统地探讨,实验结果表明物体识别倒置效应并非面孔物体所独用,普通物体识别也存在倒置效应,物体特定角度体验程度存在差异是物体识别倒置效应产生与否的决定性因素。普通物体识别依据特定方向体验差异程度选择加工方式,表现出从特征侦察到整体布局加工连续体。基于整个研究结果,我们提出了特定角度体验程度与物体识别加工方式选择关系模型,以及更为完善的整体布局加工连续量理论,以这两个理论对整个实验结果加以解释。
There are two types of cognitive processes in human object recognition: configural processing and feature detection (or local property detection). Are different types of objects recognized by the same process? What factors played decisive roles in the selection of the type of process? All these questions are the focuses of research in the field. In the past several decades, a larger number of studies in this field have used a basic paradigm: an upside-down paradigm. By comparing the recognition performance of the stimulus presented in upright and upside-down orientation, researchers make inference on the types of process employed when they recognized these objects. When the recognition performance is worse when stimulus is presented in the upside-down orientation than upright orientation, an inversion effect is shown. Inversion effect was first discovered in face recognition. Many studies have demonstrated face presented upside-down was more difficult to be recognized by participants than upright face.
Using different types of objects as stimuli, the previous researches found that inversion effect only appeared in face recognition, not in common objects. The results indicate a face-specific processing and the configural processing specified in face recognition. However, in recent years, a series of new evidence questioned the face-specific processing theory, because inversion effect also emerged in the recognition of some common objects. For instance, inversion effect was shown when ordinary observers identified static picture of body posture and point-light body movements, when dog experts identified pictures of dog, and when trained participants identified Greeble objects or picture of houses. These results suggested that inversion effect wasn't specific to face and configural processing also existed in common object recognition. Therefore, Reed and her colleagues proposed a configural processing continuum theory to interpret large number of studies on object recognition. But, this theory lacks strong supporting evidence. In particular, there is no theory which can explain why inversion effect showed in some kinds of object recognition, not in others.
In the current project, in order to further investigate the mechanism of inversion effect, we used three types of objects: body posture, hand posture and man-made novel object-Dongle. These three types of objects are highly similar in physical properties. Using these objects we manipulated the difference in the degree of experience between upright and inverted exposure of these three kinds of object: the difference of exposure between upright body posture and inverted body posture > the difference of exposure between upright hand posture and inverted hand posture > the difference of exposure between upright man-made novel Dongle object and inverted man-made novel Dongle object. Specifically, the posture of hand is very unique, compared to the posture of body and Dongles. In daily life, average participants have much more opportunity to experience both upright hand posture and inverted hand posture, so the difference of exposure between upright hand posture and inverted hand posture is small. For the posture of body, the average participants have more opportunities of experiencing upright body posture, with less opportunity to experience inverted body posture in daily life, so the difference of experience degree between upright and inverted body posture is larger. However, the average participants never have opportunity of experience the man-made novel Dongle object in daily life, so they don't even know which direction of Dongle is upright and which direction of Dongle is inverted, the difference of exposure between upright Dongle and inverted Dongle is zero. Therefore, if there are any different results among these three types of object recognition, we can attribute them to the difference in exposure between upright and inverted orientation among the three kinds of objects. Meanwhile, we may also gain knowledge on which process the participant employed through whether the inversion effect exists when they recognize these three kinds of objects.
In the first study, we used posture of bodies as stimuli. In order to investigate whether body posture recognition demonstrates inversion effect, we controlled the presentation repetition times of body posture and use eye-tracking technique. In Expl, the participants were asked to judge whether sequentially presented two body postures were same or different. The result showed that the upright posture of body was recognized more quickly and accurately than inverted posture of body (inversion effect). The inversion effect appears in the result of the first block of test. These results indicate that body inversion effect did not resulted from repeating presentations. The result of fixation interest area analysis showed that 76 % fixations concentrated on upper body position when participants recognized upright body posture and 59.7% fixations concentrating on upper body position when participants recognized inverted body posture. Combined with the results of the initial fixation duration and numbers of fixation, the results suggest that the efficiency of processing the key information declined greatly when participant recognized inverted body posture, but it still showed the same key information area with upright body posture recognition. The eye-tracking data also suggested that it was a quantitative change of process when upright body posture was recognized compared to inverted body posture was recognized, instead of a qualitative change.
In experiment 2, we further controlled the stimuli of body posture in order to explore whether the face or head in body posture led to body inversion effect. The result showed the inversion effect still existed when participant recognized the stimuli of using a black ellipse covered the face part of body posture or removing the head part of body posture. It suggests that it was the body posture itself that led to body inversion effect, instead of face or head. In experiment 3, in order to investigate whether body inversion effect exist in different task, we adopted 10-forced-choice-l task, which indentified more dependent on exemplar level by participants The results showed larger inversion effect in this task compare to the earlier experiment using same-different task. It suggests participants were more dependent on configural processing in this task when they recognized upright body posture. In Experiment 4, we systematically manipulated the degree of deviation from canonical view of the body posture (upright body posture), and found that the performance for recognizing body postures declined with increasing the deviation from the upright body. It shows there was a linear relationship between performance of recognizing body posture and the degree of experience of different view of body posture in picture plane. It suggests it was a quantitative change of processing when upright body posture was recognized compared to inverted body posture was recognized, instead of a qualitative change.
In the second study, we used posture of hands as stimuli. In Experiment 5, in order to explore whether hand posture recognition showed inversion effect, we controlled the times of presentation of hand posture and use eye-tracking technique, and the participants were asked to judge whether sequential presentations of two hand postures were same or different. From block 1 to block3, the result did not show inversion effect in reaction time. In contrast, the biomechamcally possible hand postures in block 4 and block 5 and the biomechanical impossible hand postures in block 5 showed inversion effect in reaction time. Eye-tracking data did not show inversion effect. Participant's processing efficiency did not decline when they recognized inverted hand posture. The fixation interest area mainly centered on upper parts of hand for both upright hand posture and inverted hand posture recognition. The initial fixation duration and number of fixation did not show inversion effect. The results of reaction time of experiment 5 ranged from no robust inversion effect to significant inversion effect, which suggested a range of performance from initial mainly depending on feature detection to eventually mainly depending on configural process. In Experiment 6, we adopted repeated tests to investigate whether hand inversion effect stabilized or not. The result showed that the inversion effect remained stable in day 2 and day3 of the tests. In Experiment 7, we used 5-forced-choice-1 task to further explore hand posture inversion effect. The result showed larger inversion effect in this task and emerge inversion effect at first block. In experiment 8, we adopted training program, increasing the degree of experience of upright hand or inverted hand. The result showed that hand inversion effect was based on trained direction.
In the third study, we used man-made novel meaningless Dongle and Lingle objects as stimuli. In experiment 9, participants were asked to judge whether sequential presenting two Dongles or Lingles were the same or different, and observe whether the results automatically showed inversion effect like body posture recognition and hand posture recognition did. The results of the five-day test did not show any inversion effect, these results suggested that the difference of degree of experience between upright object and inverted object led to inversion effect from the reverse perspective. In Experiment 10, we used training program, participants were tested only in upright Dongle or in inverted Dongle in training-test stage, then were tested in both upright Dongle or inverted Dongle in post-testing stage. The results showed Dongle inversion effect based on trained direction. This result simulated the body inversion effect and indicated that the difference of experience degree between upright object and inverted object lead to inversion effect
To sum up the result of all the three studies, the results demonstrated a continuum from strong inversion effect to little inversion effect when untrained subjects recognized these three types of object (body posture, hand posture and man-made novel Dongle objects). This suggests that untrained subjects chose appropriate process to complete the recognition task depending on their experience received in daily life. Training participants to experience a specific direction of hand posture or Dongle also led to inversion effect, which suggests the processing method is changeable, both configural processing and feature detection can be selected depending on the past experience. The results of eye-tracking data also showed inversion effect, which was consistent with the result of reaction time, and result of interest area suggests it is not a qualitative change, but quantitative change between upright object processing and inverted object processing.
This project represents the first study to examine object recognition through manipulation of the difference in the degree of experience between upright object and inverted object. The result indicates the inversion effect is not specific to face recognition, and common object recognition can also lead to inversion effect. The difference of exposure among object viewpoint in daily life led to object inversion effect. Participants choose method of processing based on their experience when they recognize objects. The results of the whole series of studies demonstrate a continuum from configural processing to feature detection. In order to explain all the results, we propose a theory of interaction among a few factors including the degree of exposure for specific object viewpoint, inversion effect, and type of recognition process. We also provide a revision of the present configural processing continuum theory.
引文
[1] Maurer D, Le Grand R, Mondloch C J. The many faces of configural processing[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2002, 6(6): 255-260.
[2] Bukach C M, Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2006, 10(4): 159-166.
[3] Mckone E, Kanwisher N, Duchaine B C. Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2007, 11(1): 8-15.
[4] Peissig J J, Tan M J. Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago?[J].ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2007, 58: 75-96.
[5] Yin R. Looking at upside-down faces.[J]. Journal of experimental psychology. 1969, 81: 141-145.
[6] Barton J. Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2001, 92(3): 527-549.
[7] Barton J, Zhao J H, Keenan J P. Perception of global facial geometry in the inversion effect and prosopagnosia[J]. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA. 2003, 41(12): 1703-1711.
[8] Goffaux V, Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2007, 33(4): 995-1002.
[9] Leder H, Carbon C C. Face-specific configural processing of relational information[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2006, 97(1): 19-29.
[10] Dolan R J, Fink G R, Rolls E, et al. How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context[J]. NATURE. 1997, 389(6651): 596-599.
[11] Campbell R, Macsweeney M, Surguladze S, et al. Cortical substrates for the perception of face actions: an fMRI study of the specificity of activation for seen speech and for meaningless lower-face acts (gurning)[J]. COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH. 2001, 12(2): 233-243.
[12] Henke K, Schweinberger S R, Grigo A, et al. Specificity of face recognition: Recognition of exemplars of non-face objects in prosopagnosia[J]. CORTEX. 1998, 34(2): 289-296.
[13] Byatt G, Rhodes G, Michie P, et al. Face-specificity in human fusiform gyrus[J]. NEUROIMAGE.2001, 13S(62): 868.
[14] Itier R J, Latinus M, Taylor M J. Face, eye and object early processing: What is the face speci(?)city?[J]. NEUROIMAGE. 2006, 29(2): 667-676.
[15] Reed C L, Beall P M, Stone V E, et al. Brief report: Perception of body posture-what individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be missing[J]. JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS. 2007. 37(8): 1576-1584.
[16] Reed C L, Stone V E, Grubb J D, et al. Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2006, 32(1): 73-87.
[17] Reed C L, Stone V E, Bozova S, et al. The body-inversion effect[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2003, 14(4): 302-308.
[18] Reed C, Mcgoldrick J, Shackelford J R, et al. Are human bodies lepresented differently from other objects? Experience shapes object representations[J]. VISUAL COGNITION. 2004, 11(4): 523-550.
[19] Stekelenburg (?) J, De Gelder B. The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: an ERP study on the body-inversion effect[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2004, 15(5): 777-780.
[20] Troje N F, Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a "life detector"?[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 2006, 16(8): 821-824.
[21] Duelthoff'I, Buelthoff H, Sinha P. Top-down influences on stereoscopic dcplli-perccption[J] Nature Neuroscience. 1998, 1(4): 254-257.
[22] Husk J S, Bennett P J, Sekuler A B. Inverting houses and textures: Investigating the characteristics of learned inversion effects[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2007, 47(27): 3350-3359.
[23] Robbins R, Mckone E. No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks[J].COGNITION. 2007, 103(1): 34-79.
[24] Diamond R, Carey S. Why faces are and are not special:An effect of expertise[J]. Journal of experimental psychology:general. 1986, 115(2): 115-117.
[25] Vuong Q C, Peissig J J, Harrison M C, et al. The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2005, 45(10):1213-1223.
[26] Gauthier I, Williams P, Tan' M J, et al. Training 'greeble' experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 1998, 38(15-16): 2401-2428.
[27] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Becoming a "greeble" expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition[J].VISION RESEARCH. 1997,37(12): 1673-1682.
[28] Ashworth A, Vuong Q C, Rossion B, et al. Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?[J]. VISUAL COGNITION. 2008, 16(6): 754-784.
[29] Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception[J]. ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA. 2008, 128(2): 274-289.
[30] Gallay M, Baudouin J Y, Durand K, et al. Qualitative differences in the exploration of upright and upside-down faces in four-month-old infants: An eye-movement study[J]. CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2006, 77(4): 984-996.
[31] Liu C H, Chaudhuri A. Are there qualitative differences between face processing in photographic positive and negative?[J]. PERCEPTION. 1998, 27(9): 1107-1122.
[32] Sekuler A B, Gaspar C M, Gold J M, et al. Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 2004, 14(5): 391-396.
[33] Johnson C J, James M J L. Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification.[J].Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 1980, 19(5): 503-524.
[34] Reed C L, Stone V E, Mcgoldrick J E. Not just posturing:Configural processing of the human body[M]. Human body perception from the inside out: advances in visual cognition, Knoblich G,Thornton I M, Grosjean M, et al, New york,NY:US:Oxford University Press, 2006, 468.
[35] Lederman S J, Kilgour A, Kitada R, et al. Haptic face processing[J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.2007, 61(3): 230-241.
[36] Kilgour A R, Lederman S J. A haptic face-inversion effect[J]. PERCEPTION. 2006, 35(7): 921-931.
[37] Kilgour A R, De Gelder B, Lederman S J. Haptic face recognition and prosopagnosia[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA. 2004, 42(6): 707-712.
[38] Bruce V, Doyle T, Dench N, et al. REMEMBERING FACIAL CONFIGURATIONS[J].COGNITION. 1991, 38(2): 109-144.
[39] Carey S. BECOMING A FACE EXPERT[J]. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 1992, 335(1273): 95-103.
[40] Farah M J, Tanaka J W, Drain H M. WHAT CAUSES THE FACE INVERSION EFFECT[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.1995,21(3):628-634.
[41]Freire A,Lee K,Symons L A.The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information:Direct evidence[J].PERCEPTION.2000,29(2):159-170.
[42]Leder H,Bruce V.When inverted faces are recognized:The role of configural information in face recognition[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.2000,53(2):513-536.
[43]Johnson M H,Dziurawiec S,Bartrip J,et al.THE EFFECTS OF MOVEMENT OF INTERNAL FEATURES ON INFANTS PREFERENCES FOR FACE-LIKE STIMULI[J].INFANT BEHAVIOR & DEVELOPMENT.1992,15(1):129-136.
[44]Moscovitch M,Winocur G,Behrmann M.What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.1997,9(5):555-604.
[45]Kanwisher N,Tong F,Nakayama K.The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area[J].COGNITION.1998,68(1):1-11.
[46]Harris A M,Aguirre G K.PROSOPAGNOSIA[J].CURRENT BIOLOGY.2007,17(1):7-8.
[47]Liu J,Higuchi M,Marantz A,et al.The selectivity of the occipitotemporal M170 for faces[J].NEUROREPORT.2000,11(2):337-341.
[48]Latinus M,Taylor M J.Holistic processing of faces:Learning effects with Mooney faces[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.2005,17(8):1316-1327.
[49]Rhodes G,Maloney L T,Turner J,et al.Adaptive face coding and discrimination around the average face[J].VISION RESEARCH.2007,47(7):974-989.
[50]Tsao D Y,Freiwald W A.What's so special about the average face?[J].TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES.2006,10(9):391-393.
[51]Ge L Z,Wang Z,Mccleery J P,et al.Activation of face expertise and thc inversion effect[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2006,17(1):12-16.
[52]王哲,葛列众.面孔和汉字双关图的反转效应[J].心理科学.2008(02):363-366.
[53]Mccleery J P,Zhang L Y,Ge L Z,et al.The roles of visual expertise and visual input in the face inversion effect:Behavioral and neurocomputational evidence[J].VISION RESEARCH.2008,48(5):703-715.
[54]Haig N D.THE EFFECT OF FEATURE DISPLACEMENT ON FACE RECOGNITION[J].PERCEPTION.1984,13(5):505-512.
[55]Le Grand R,Mondloch C J,Maurer D,et al.Neuroperception-Early visual experience and face processing[J].NATURE.2001,410(6831):890-890.
[56]Carey S,Diamond R.ARE FACES PERCEIVED AS CONFIGURATIONS MORE BY ADULTS THAN BY CHILDREN[J].visual cognition.1994,1(2):253-274.
[57]Mondloch C J,Leis A,Maurer D.Recognizing the face of Johnny,Suzy,and Me:Insensitivity to the spacing among features at 4 years of age[J].CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2006,77(1):234-243.
[58]Mckone E,Boyer B L.Sensitivity of 4-year-olds to featural and second-order relational changes in face distinctiveness[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY.2006,94(2):134-162.
[59]Pellicano E,Rhodes G,Peters M.Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces?[J].DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE.2006,9(3):270-277.
[60]Bhatt R S,Bertin E,Hayden A,et al.Face processing in infancy:Developmental changes in the use of different kinds of relational information[J].CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2005,76(1):169-181.
[61]Hayden A,Bhatt R S,Reed A,et al.The development of expert face processing:Are infants sensitive to normal differences in second-order relational information?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY.2007,97(2):85-98.
[62]Tanaka J W,Farah M J.Parts and wholes in face recognition[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.1993,46(2):225-245.
[63]Tanaka J W,Farah M J.Parts and wholes in face recognition[J].BULLETIN OF THE PSYCHONOMIC SOCIETY.1991,29(6):520.
[64]Davidoff J,Landis T.Recognition of unfamiliar faces in prosopagnosia[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.1990,28(11):1143-1161.
[65]Thompson P.Thatcher Margaret-a new illusion[J].PERCEPTION.1980,9(4):483-484.
[66]王哲,葛列众,孙宇浩.人脸特征信息反转效应的实验研究[J].心理科学.2006(06):1351-1353.
[67]Bosbach S,Knoblich G,Reed C L,et al.Body inversion effect without body sense:Insights from deafferentation[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2006,44(14):2950-2958.
[68] Slaughter V, Stone V E, Reed C. Perception of faces and bodies - Similar or different?[J].CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2004, 13(6): 219-223.
[69] Dawson G, Carver L, Meltzoff A N, et al. Neural correlates of face and object recognition in young children with autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and typical development[J]. CHILD DEVELOPMENT. 2002, 73(3): 700-717.
[70] Dawson G, Webb S J, Wijsman E, et al. Neurocognitive and electrophysiological evidence of altered face processing in parents of children with autism' Implications for a model of abnormal deve'opment of social brain circuitry in autism[J]. DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. 2005, 17(3):679-697.
[71] Downing P, Kanwisher N. A cortical area specialized for visual processing of the human body[J].Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 2001, 27(1): 321.
[72] Johnson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model of its analysis[J]. perception and psychophysics. 1973(14): 201-211.
[73] Ikeda H, Blake R, Watanabe K. Eccentric perception of biological motion is unscalably poor[J].VISION RESEARCH. 2005, 45(15): 1935-1943.
[74] Dittrich W H. Action categories and the perception of biological motion[J]. PERCEPTION. 1993,22(1): 15-22.
[75] Simion F, Regolin L, Bulf H. A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby[J].PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2008, 105(2): 809-813.
[76] Bentin S, Decuell L Y, Soroker N. Selective visual streaming in face recognition: evidence from developmental prosopagnosia[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1999, 10(4): 823-827.
[77] Eimer M. Does the face-specific N170 component reflect the activity of a specialized eye processor?[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1998, 9(13): 2945-2948.
[78] Eimer M. The face-specific N170 component reflects late stages in the structural encoding of faces[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2000, 11(10): 2319-2324.
[79] Eimer M, McCarthy R A. Prosopagnosia and structural encoding of faces: Evidence from event-related potentials[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1999, 10(2): 255-259.
[80] Rossion B, Delvenne J F, Debatisse D, et al. Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: an event-related potentials study[J]. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 1999, 50(3): 173-189.
[81] Tanaka J W, Curran T. A neural basis for expert object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2001, 12(1): 43-47.
[82] Gauthier I, Skudlarski P, Gore J C, et al. Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2000, 3(2): 191-197.
[83] Rhodes G, Byatt G, Michie P T, et al. Is the fusiform face area specialized for faces, individuation, or expert individuation?[J]. JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE. 2004, 16(2): 189-203.
[84] Busey T A, Vanderkolk J R. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2005,45(4): 431-448.
[85] Nederhouser M, Yue X, Mangini M C, et al. The deleterious effect of contrast reversal on recognition is unique to faces, not objects[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2007, 47(16): 2134-2142.
[86] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2002, 28(2): 431-446.
[87] Rossion B, Gauthier I, Tarr M J, et al. 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[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2000, 11(1): 69-74.
[88] Rossion B, Gauthier I, Goffaux V, et al. Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized facelike electrophysiological responses[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2002, 13(3): 250-257.
[89] Gauthier I, Anderson A W, Tarr M J, et al. Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 1997, 7(9): 645-651.
[90] Gauthier L, Tarr M J, Anderson A W, et al. Expertise training with novel objects can recruit the fusiform face area[J]. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 1997, 23(1-2): 2229.
[91] Gauthier I, Tarr M J, Moylan J, et al. The functionally defined "face area" is engaged by subordinate-level recognition[J]. JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE. 1998, S: 35.
[92] Gauthier I, Kanwisher N, Anderson A W, et al. Expertise for cars and birds recruits middle fusiform face-selective areas[J]. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 1999, 25(1-2): 530.
[93] Tarr M J, Gauthier I. FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2000, 3(8): 764-769.
[94]Gauthier I,Tarr M J,Anderson A W,et al.Activation of the middle fusiform‘face area'increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.1999,2(6):568-573.
[95]Moscovitch M,Moscovitch D A.Super face-inversion effects for isolated internal or external features,and for fractured faces[J].COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY.2000,17(1-3):201-219.
[96]Gauthier I,Behrmann M,Tarr M J.Are Greebles like faces? Using the neuropsychological exception to test the rule[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2004,42(14):1961-1970.
[97]Behrmann M,Marotta J,Gauthier I,et al.Behavioral change and its neural correlates in visual agnosia after expertise training[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.2005.17(4):554-568.
[98]Duchaine B C,Dingle K,Butterworth E,et al.Normal greeble learning in a severe case of developmental prosopagnosia[J].NEURON.2004,43(4):469-473.
[99]Massironi M,Bruno N.The perception of surface folding in static and animated displays[J].PERCEPTION.1997,26(2):153-170.
[100]Wynberg M.Bridging the gap between birds,cars,faces,and greebles[D].University of Toronto,2006.
[101]Moore C D,Cohen M X,Ranganath C.Neural mechanisms of expert skills in visual working memory[J].JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE.2006,26(43):11187-11196.
[102]Mclaren I.Categorization and perceptual learning:An analogue of the face inversion effect[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.1997,50(2):257-273.
[103]Biederman I,Subramaniam S,Kalocsai P,et al.Viewpoint-invariant information in subordina(?)-level obies(?)(?)lassifi(?)ation[J].ATTENTION AND PFRFORMANCE ⅩⅦ.1999,17:91-l11.
[104]Sowden P T,Davies I,Roling P.Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images:A functional role for improvements in adults'visual sensitivity?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.2000,26(1):379-390.
[105]Mckone E,Kanwisher N,Duchaine B C.Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?[J].TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES.2007,11(1):8-15.
[106]李琰琰,钱秀莹.面孔识别真的具有特殊性吗?[J].人类工效学.2006(02):62-64.
[107]徐岩,张亚旭,周晓林.面孔加工的认知神经科学研究:回顾与展望[J].心理科学进展.2003(01):35-43.
[108]Tarr M.Visual object recognition:Can a single mechanism suffice?[M].Perception of faces,objects,and scenes;Analytic and Holistic Processes,Peterson M,Rhodes G,New York,NY:US:Oxford University Press,2003,339.
[109]Mondloch C J,Maurer D,Ahola S.Becoming a face expert[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2006,17(11):930-934.
[110]Tomonaga M.HOW LABORATORY-RAISED JAPANESE MONKEYS(MACACA-FUSCATA)PERCEIVE ROTATED PHOTOGRAPHS OF MONKEYS-EVIDENCE FOR AN INVERSION EFFECT IN FACE PERCEPTION[J].PRIMATES.1994,35(2):155-165.
[111]Parr L A,Hopkins W D,De Waal F.Why faces may be special:Evidence for the inversion effect in chimpanzees[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.1998,S:35.
[112]Mckone E,Robbins R.The evidence rejects the expertise hypothesis:Reply to Gauthier &Bukach[J].COGNITION.2007,103(2):331-336.
[113]Robbins R,Mckone E.No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks[J].Cognition.2007,103(1):34-79.
[114]Haxby J V,Ungerleider L G,Clark V P,et al.The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception[J].NEURON.1999,22(1):189-199.
[115]Marr D,Nishihara H K.Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.[J].Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.1978,200(1140):269-294.
[116]Bruce V,Green P,George M.Visual perception:Physiology,psychology,& ecology(4th ed.).[M].New York,NY,US:Psychology Press,2003:488.
[117]Jolicoeur P.the time to name disoriented natural objects[J].memory and cognition.1985,13:289-303.
[118]Lawson R,Humphreys G W,Jolicoeur P.The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming:One manipulation or two?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.2000,26(2):568-581.
[119]Jolicoeur P.Orientation congruency effects on the identification of disoriented shapes[J].Journal of experimental psychology:human perception and performance.1990,16(2):351-364.
[120] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Orientation priming of novel shapes in the context of viewpoint-dependent reccgnition[J]. PERCEPTION. 1997, 26(1): 51-73.
[121] Tarr M J, Gauthier I. Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class?[J]. COGNITION. 1998, 67(1-2): 73-110.
[122] Ullman S. Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2007, 11(2): 58-64.
[123] Ullman S, Vidal-Naquet M, Sali E. Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2002, 5(7): 682-687.
[124] Wagemans J. High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition - Ullman,S[J]. JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 1997, 41(3): 293-298.
[125] Graf M. Coordinate transformations in object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN.2006, 132(6): 920-945.
[126] Graf M, Raping D, Bulthoff H H. Orientation congruency effects for familiar objects - Coordinate transformations in object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2005, 16(3): 214-221.
[127] Graf M, Kaping D, Bulthoff H H. Orientation congruency effect in object recognition[J].PERCEPTION. 2003, 32S: 117.
[128] Rhodes G I, Lee K, Byatt G. Caricature Identification: A test of the face-space framework.[J],INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE. 2000, 41S(4): 224.
[129] Rhodes G, Byatt G, Tremewan T, et al. Facial distinctiveness and the power of carica!ures[J],PERCEPTION. 1997, 26(2): 207-223.
[130] Maclin O H, Malpass R S. Last but not least - The ambiguous-race face illusion[J]. PERCEPTION.2003, 32(2): 249-252.
[131] Maclin O H, Malpass R S. Racial categorization of faces - The ambiguous race face effect[J].PSYCHOLOGY PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW. 2001, 7(1): 98-118.
[132] Fallshore M, Schooler J W. Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION. 1995, 21(6):1608-1623.
[133] Rhodes G, Brake S, Taylor K, et al. Expertise and cofigural coding in face recognition[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 1989, 80(3): 313-331.
[134]Golby A J,Gabrieli J,Chiao J Y,et al.Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2001,4(8):845-850.
[135]牟炜民,赵民涛,李晓鸥.人类空间记忆和空间巡航[J].心理科学进展.2006(04):497-504.
[136]赵民涛,牟炜民.多视点学习条件下空间表征的朝向特异性[J].心理学报.2005(03):308-313.
[137]Mou W M,Xiao C L,Mcnamara T P.Reference directions and reference objects in spatial memory of a briefly viewed layout[J].COGNITION.2008,108(1):136-154.
[138]Mou W M,Mcnamara T P,Valiquette C M,et al.Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.2004,30(1):142-157.
[139]Mou W M,Mcnamara T P,Rump B,et al.Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.2006,32(6):1274-1290.
[140]Andrew T D.eye tracking methodology:theory & Practice[M].New York,NY:Springer US Sales Department,2007.
[141]Althoff R R,Cohen N J.Eye-movement-based memory effect:A reprocessing effect in face perception[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.1999,25(4):997-1010.
[142]Mertens I,Siegmund H,Grusser O J.Gaze motor asymmetries in the perception of faces during a memory task[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.1993,31(9):989-998.
[143]Henderson J M,Falk R J,Minut S,et al.Gaze control for face learing and recognition ih humans and machines[M].In T.Shipley & P.Kellman(Eds),2001:463-481.
[144]Le S,Raufaste E,Roussel S,et al.Implicit face perception in a patient with visual agnosia?Evidence from behavioural and eye-tracking analyses[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2003,41(6):702-712.
[145]Trepagnier C,Sebrechts M M,Peterson R.Atypical face gaze in autism[J].CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR.2002,5(3):213-217.
[146]Schyns P G,Bonnar L,Gosselin F.Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the(?)se of visual information[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2002,13(5):402-409.
[147]Gosselin F,Schyns P G.Bubbles:a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks[J].VISION RESEARCH.2001,41(17):2261-2271.
[148]Bennett P J,Sekuler A B,Gaspar C.Using response classification to examine the face-inversion effect[J].PERCEPTION.2002,31S:105.
[149]Hsiao J H,Cottrell G.Two fixations suffice in face recognition[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2008 19(10):998-1006.
[150]Barton J,Radcliffe N,Cherkasova M V,et al.Information processing during face recognition:The effects of familiarity,inversion,and morphing on scanning fixations[J].PERCEPTION.2006,35(8):1089-1105.
[151]Rothstein J M,Roy S H,Wolf S L.Rehabilitation Specialist's Handbook[M].3rd edition ed.Davis,F A,2005.
[152]Xu Y D.Revisiting the role of the fusiform face area in visual expertise[J].CEREBRAL CORTEX.2005,15(8):1234-1242.
[153]Robert L S.Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist:an fMRI study[J].LEONARDO.2001,34(1):31-34,
[154]Gaxia W,Jing L,Youfa L.Brain sturcture in sport experts on MR Imaging Studies with Voxel-Based Morphometry[J].Progress in natural science.2009,(in press).
[155]李琰琰.二维模式专家化识别的加工机制初探[D].杭州:浙江大学,2005.
[156]Liu J,Harris A,Kanwisher N.Stages of processing in face perception:an MEG study[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2002,5(9):910-916.
[157]Yovel G,Kanwisher N.Face perception:Domain specific,not process specific[J].NEURON.2004,44(5):889-898.
[158]Kanwisher N.Domain specificity in face perception[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2000,3(8):759-763.
[159]Mckone E,Kanwisher N.Does the human brain process objects of expertise like faces? A review of the evidence[M].From Monkey Brain to Human Brain,Dehaene S,Duhamel J,Hauser M,et al,MIT Press,2005.
[2] Bukach C M, Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2006, 10(4): 159-166.
[3] Mckone E, Kanwisher N, Duchaine B C. Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2007, 11(1): 8-15.
[4] Peissig J J, Tan M J. Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago?[J].ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2007, 58: 75-96.
[5] Yin R. Looking at upside-down faces.[J]. Journal of experimental psychology. 1969, 81: 141-145.
[6] Barton J. Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2001, 92(3): 527-549.
[7] Barton J, Zhao J H, Keenan J P. Perception of global facial geometry in the inversion effect and prosopagnosia[J]. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA. 2003, 41(12): 1703-1711.
[8] Goffaux V, Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2007, 33(4): 995-1002.
[9] Leder H, Carbon C C. Face-specific configural processing of relational information[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 2006, 97(1): 19-29.
[10] Dolan R J, Fink G R, Rolls E, et al. How the brain learns to see objects and faces in an impoverished context[J]. NATURE. 1997, 389(6651): 596-599.
[11] Campbell R, Macsweeney M, Surguladze S, et al. Cortical substrates for the perception of face actions: an fMRI study of the specificity of activation for seen speech and for meaningless lower-face acts (gurning)[J]. COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH. 2001, 12(2): 233-243.
[12] Henke K, Schweinberger S R, Grigo A, et al. Specificity of face recognition: Recognition of exemplars of non-face objects in prosopagnosia[J]. CORTEX. 1998, 34(2): 289-296.
[13] Byatt G, Rhodes G, Michie P, et al. Face-specificity in human fusiform gyrus[J]. NEUROIMAGE.2001, 13S(62): 868.
[14] Itier R J, Latinus M, Taylor M J. Face, eye and object early processing: What is the face speci(?)city?[J]. NEUROIMAGE. 2006, 29(2): 667-676.
[15] Reed C L, Beall P M, Stone V E, et al. Brief report: Perception of body posture-what individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be missing[J]. JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS. 2007. 37(8): 1576-1584.
[16] Reed C L, Stone V E, Grubb J D, et al. Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2006, 32(1): 73-87.
[17] Reed C L, Stone V E, Bozova S, et al. The body-inversion effect[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2003, 14(4): 302-308.
[18] Reed C, Mcgoldrick J, Shackelford J R, et al. Are human bodies lepresented differently from other objects? Experience shapes object representations[J]. VISUAL COGNITION. 2004, 11(4): 523-550.
[19] Stekelenburg (?) J, De Gelder B. The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: an ERP study on the body-inversion effect[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2004, 15(5): 777-780.
[20] Troje N F, Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a "life detector"?[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 2006, 16(8): 821-824.
[21] Duelthoff'I, Buelthoff H, Sinha P. Top-down influences on stereoscopic dcplli-perccption[J] Nature Neuroscience. 1998, 1(4): 254-257.
[22] Husk J S, Bennett P J, Sekuler A B. Inverting houses and textures: Investigating the characteristics of learned inversion effects[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2007, 47(27): 3350-3359.
[23] Robbins R, Mckone E. No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks[J].COGNITION. 2007, 103(1): 34-79.
[24] Diamond R, Carey S. Why faces are and are not special:An effect of expertise[J]. Journal of experimental psychology:general. 1986, 115(2): 115-117.
[25] Vuong Q C, Peissig J J, Harrison M C, et al. The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2005, 45(10):1213-1223.
[26] Gauthier I, Williams P, Tan' M J, et al. Training 'greeble' experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 1998, 38(15-16): 2401-2428.
[27] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Becoming a "greeble" expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition[J].VISION RESEARCH. 1997,37(12): 1673-1682.
[28] Ashworth A, Vuong Q C, Rossion B, et al. Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?[J]. VISUAL COGNITION. 2008, 16(6): 754-784.
[29] Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception[J]. ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA. 2008, 128(2): 274-289.
[30] Gallay M, Baudouin J Y, Durand K, et al. Qualitative differences in the exploration of upright and upside-down faces in four-month-old infants: An eye-movement study[J]. CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2006, 77(4): 984-996.
[31] Liu C H, Chaudhuri A. Are there qualitative differences between face processing in photographic positive and negative?[J]. PERCEPTION. 1998, 27(9): 1107-1122.
[32] Sekuler A B, Gaspar C M, Gold J M, et al. Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 2004, 14(5): 391-396.
[33] Johnson C J, James M J L. Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification.[J].Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 1980, 19(5): 503-524.
[34] Reed C L, Stone V E, Mcgoldrick J E. Not just posturing:Configural processing of the human body[M]. Human body perception from the inside out: advances in visual cognition, Knoblich G,Thornton I M, Grosjean M, et al, New york,NY:US:Oxford University Press, 2006, 468.
[35] Lederman S J, Kilgour A, Kitada R, et al. Haptic face processing[J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.2007, 61(3): 230-241.
[36] Kilgour A R, Lederman S J. A haptic face-inversion effect[J]. PERCEPTION. 2006, 35(7): 921-931.
[37] Kilgour A R, De Gelder B, Lederman S J. Haptic face recognition and prosopagnosia[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA. 2004, 42(6): 707-712.
[38] Bruce V, Doyle T, Dench N, et al. REMEMBERING FACIAL CONFIGURATIONS[J].COGNITION. 1991, 38(2): 109-144.
[39] Carey S. BECOMING A FACE EXPERT[J]. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 1992, 335(1273): 95-103.
[40] Farah M J, Tanaka J W, Drain H M. WHAT CAUSES THE FACE INVERSION EFFECT[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.1995,21(3):628-634.
[41]Freire A,Lee K,Symons L A.The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information:Direct evidence[J].PERCEPTION.2000,29(2):159-170.
[42]Leder H,Bruce V.When inverted faces are recognized:The role of configural information in face recognition[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.2000,53(2):513-536.
[43]Johnson M H,Dziurawiec S,Bartrip J,et al.THE EFFECTS OF MOVEMENT OF INTERNAL FEATURES ON INFANTS PREFERENCES FOR FACE-LIKE STIMULI[J].INFANT BEHAVIOR & DEVELOPMENT.1992,15(1):129-136.
[44]Moscovitch M,Winocur G,Behrmann M.What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.1997,9(5):555-604.
[45]Kanwisher N,Tong F,Nakayama K.The effect of face inversion on the human fusiform face area[J].COGNITION.1998,68(1):1-11.
[46]Harris A M,Aguirre G K.PROSOPAGNOSIA[J].CURRENT BIOLOGY.2007,17(1):7-8.
[47]Liu J,Higuchi M,Marantz A,et al.The selectivity of the occipitotemporal M170 for faces[J].NEUROREPORT.2000,11(2):337-341.
[48]Latinus M,Taylor M J.Holistic processing of faces:Learning effects with Mooney faces[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.2005,17(8):1316-1327.
[49]Rhodes G,Maloney L T,Turner J,et al.Adaptive face coding and discrimination around the average face[J].VISION RESEARCH.2007,47(7):974-989.
[50]Tsao D Y,Freiwald W A.What's so special about the average face?[J].TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES.2006,10(9):391-393.
[51]Ge L Z,Wang Z,Mccleery J P,et al.Activation of face expertise and thc inversion effect[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2006,17(1):12-16.
[52]王哲,葛列众.面孔和汉字双关图的反转效应[J].心理科学.2008(02):363-366.
[53]Mccleery J P,Zhang L Y,Ge L Z,et al.The roles of visual expertise and visual input in the face inversion effect:Behavioral and neurocomputational evidence[J].VISION RESEARCH.2008,48(5):703-715.
[54]Haig N D.THE EFFECT OF FEATURE DISPLACEMENT ON FACE RECOGNITION[J].PERCEPTION.1984,13(5):505-512.
[55]Le Grand R,Mondloch C J,Maurer D,et al.Neuroperception-Early visual experience and face processing[J].NATURE.2001,410(6831):890-890.
[56]Carey S,Diamond R.ARE FACES PERCEIVED AS CONFIGURATIONS MORE BY ADULTS THAN BY CHILDREN[J].visual cognition.1994,1(2):253-274.
[57]Mondloch C J,Leis A,Maurer D.Recognizing the face of Johnny,Suzy,and Me:Insensitivity to the spacing among features at 4 years of age[J].CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2006,77(1):234-243.
[58]Mckone E,Boyer B L.Sensitivity of 4-year-olds to featural and second-order relational changes in face distinctiveness[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY.2006,94(2):134-162.
[59]Pellicano E,Rhodes G,Peters M.Are preschoolers sensitive to configural information in faces?[J].DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE.2006,9(3):270-277.
[60]Bhatt R S,Bertin E,Hayden A,et al.Face processing in infancy:Developmental changes in the use of different kinds of relational information[J].CHILD DEVELOPMENT.2005,76(1):169-181.
[61]Hayden A,Bhatt R S,Reed A,et al.The development of expert face processing:Are infants sensitive to normal differences in second-order relational information?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY.2007,97(2):85-98.
[62]Tanaka J W,Farah M J.Parts and wholes in face recognition[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.1993,46(2):225-245.
[63]Tanaka J W,Farah M J.Parts and wholes in face recognition[J].BULLETIN OF THE PSYCHONOMIC SOCIETY.1991,29(6):520.
[64]Davidoff J,Landis T.Recognition of unfamiliar faces in prosopagnosia[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.1990,28(11):1143-1161.
[65]Thompson P.Thatcher Margaret-a new illusion[J].PERCEPTION.1980,9(4):483-484.
[66]王哲,葛列众,孙宇浩.人脸特征信息反转效应的实验研究[J].心理科学.2006(06):1351-1353.
[67]Bosbach S,Knoblich G,Reed C L,et al.Body inversion effect without body sense:Insights from deafferentation[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2006,44(14):2950-2958.
[68] Slaughter V, Stone V E, Reed C. Perception of faces and bodies - Similar or different?[J].CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2004, 13(6): 219-223.
[69] Dawson G, Carver L, Meltzoff A N, et al. Neural correlates of face and object recognition in young children with autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and typical development[J]. CHILD DEVELOPMENT. 2002, 73(3): 700-717.
[70] Dawson G, Webb S J, Wijsman E, et al. Neurocognitive and electrophysiological evidence of altered face processing in parents of children with autism' Implications for a model of abnormal deve'opment of social brain circuitry in autism[J]. DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. 2005, 17(3):679-697.
[71] Downing P, Kanwisher N. A cortical area specialized for visual processing of the human body[J].Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 2001, 27(1): 321.
[72] Johnson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model of its analysis[J]. perception and psychophysics. 1973(14): 201-211.
[73] Ikeda H, Blake R, Watanabe K. Eccentric perception of biological motion is unscalably poor[J].VISION RESEARCH. 2005, 45(15): 1935-1943.
[74] Dittrich W H. Action categories and the perception of biological motion[J]. PERCEPTION. 1993,22(1): 15-22.
[75] Simion F, Regolin L, Bulf H. A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby[J].PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2008, 105(2): 809-813.
[76] Bentin S, Decuell L Y, Soroker N. Selective visual streaming in face recognition: evidence from developmental prosopagnosia[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1999, 10(4): 823-827.
[77] Eimer M. Does the face-specific N170 component reflect the activity of a specialized eye processor?[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1998, 9(13): 2945-2948.
[78] Eimer M. The face-specific N170 component reflects late stages in the structural encoding of faces[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2000, 11(10): 2319-2324.
[79] Eimer M, McCarthy R A. Prosopagnosia and structural encoding of faces: Evidence from event-related potentials[J]. NEUROREPORT. 1999, 10(2): 255-259.
[80] Rossion B, Delvenne J F, Debatisse D, et al. Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: an event-related potentials study[J]. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 1999, 50(3): 173-189.
[81] Tanaka J W, Curran T. A neural basis for expert object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2001, 12(1): 43-47.
[82] Gauthier I, Skudlarski P, Gore J C, et al. Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2000, 3(2): 191-197.
[83] Rhodes G, Byatt G, Michie P T, et al. Is the fusiform face area specialized for faces, individuation, or expert individuation?[J]. JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE. 2004, 16(2): 189-203.
[84] Busey T A, Vanderkolk J R. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2005,45(4): 431-448.
[85] Nederhouser M, Yue X, Mangini M C, et al. The deleterious effect of contrast reversal on recognition is unique to faces, not objects[J]. VISION RESEARCH. 2007, 47(16): 2134-2142.
[86] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE. 2002, 28(2): 431-446.
[87] Rossion B, Gauthier I, Tarr M J, et al. 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[J]. NEUROREPORT. 2000, 11(1): 69-74.
[88] Rossion B, Gauthier I, Goffaux V, et al. Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized facelike electrophysiological responses[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2002, 13(3): 250-257.
[89] Gauthier I, Anderson A W, Tarr M J, et al. Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging[J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY. 1997, 7(9): 645-651.
[90] Gauthier L, Tarr M J, Anderson A W, et al. Expertise training with novel objects can recruit the fusiform face area[J]. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 1997, 23(1-2): 2229.
[91] Gauthier I, Tarr M J, Moylan J, et al. The functionally defined "face area" is engaged by subordinate-level recognition[J]. JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE. 1998, S: 35.
[92] Gauthier I, Kanwisher N, Anderson A W, et al. Expertise for cars and birds recruits middle fusiform face-selective areas[J]. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 1999, 25(1-2): 530.
[93] Tarr M J, Gauthier I. FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2000, 3(8): 764-769.
[94]Gauthier I,Tarr M J,Anderson A W,et al.Activation of the middle fusiform‘face area'increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.1999,2(6):568-573.
[95]Moscovitch M,Moscovitch D A.Super face-inversion effects for isolated internal or external features,and for fractured faces[J].COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY.2000,17(1-3):201-219.
[96]Gauthier I,Behrmann M,Tarr M J.Are Greebles like faces? Using the neuropsychological exception to test the rule[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2004,42(14):1961-1970.
[97]Behrmann M,Marotta J,Gauthier I,et al.Behavioral change and its neural correlates in visual agnosia after expertise training[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.2005.17(4):554-568.
[98]Duchaine B C,Dingle K,Butterworth E,et al.Normal greeble learning in a severe case of developmental prosopagnosia[J].NEURON.2004,43(4):469-473.
[99]Massironi M,Bruno N.The perception of surface folding in static and animated displays[J].PERCEPTION.1997,26(2):153-170.
[100]Wynberg M.Bridging the gap between birds,cars,faces,and greebles[D].University of Toronto,2006.
[101]Moore C D,Cohen M X,Ranganath C.Neural mechanisms of expert skills in visual working memory[J].JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE.2006,26(43):11187-11196.
[102]Mclaren I.Categorization and perceptual learning:An analogue of the face inversion effect[J].QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION A-HUMAN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.1997,50(2):257-273.
[103]Biederman I,Subramaniam S,Kalocsai P,et al.Viewpoint-invariant information in subordina(?)-level obies(?)(?)lassifi(?)ation[J].ATTENTION AND PFRFORMANCE ⅩⅦ.1999,17:91-l11.
[104]Sowden P T,Davies I,Roling P.Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images:A functional role for improvements in adults'visual sensitivity?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.2000,26(1):379-390.
[105]Mckone E,Kanwisher N,Duchaine B C.Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?[J].TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES.2007,11(1):8-15.
[106]李琰琰,钱秀莹.面孔识别真的具有特殊性吗?[J].人类工效学.2006(02):62-64.
[107]徐岩,张亚旭,周晓林.面孔加工的认知神经科学研究:回顾与展望[J].心理科学进展.2003(01):35-43.
[108]Tarr M.Visual object recognition:Can a single mechanism suffice?[M].Perception of faces,objects,and scenes;Analytic and Holistic Processes,Peterson M,Rhodes G,New York,NY:US:Oxford University Press,2003,339.
[109]Mondloch C J,Maurer D,Ahola S.Becoming a face expert[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2006,17(11):930-934.
[110]Tomonaga M.HOW LABORATORY-RAISED JAPANESE MONKEYS(MACACA-FUSCATA)PERCEIVE ROTATED PHOTOGRAPHS OF MONKEYS-EVIDENCE FOR AN INVERSION EFFECT IN FACE PERCEPTION[J].PRIMATES.1994,35(2):155-165.
[111]Parr L A,Hopkins W D,De Waal F.Why faces may be special:Evidence for the inversion effect in chimpanzees[J].JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE.1998,S:35.
[112]Mckone E,Robbins R.The evidence rejects the expertise hypothesis:Reply to Gauthier &Bukach[J].COGNITION.2007,103(2):331-336.
[113]Robbins R,Mckone E.No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks[J].Cognition.2007,103(1):34-79.
[114]Haxby J V,Ungerleider L G,Clark V P,et al.The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception[J].NEURON.1999,22(1):189-199.
[115]Marr D,Nishihara H K.Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.[J].Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.1978,200(1140):269-294.
[116]Bruce V,Green P,George M.Visual perception:Physiology,psychology,& ecology(4th ed.).[M].New York,NY,US:Psychology Press,2003:488.
[117]Jolicoeur P.the time to name disoriented natural objects[J].memory and cognition.1985,13:289-303.
[118]Lawson R,Humphreys G W,Jolicoeur P.The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming:One manipulation or two?[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE.2000,26(2):568-581.
[119]Jolicoeur P.Orientation congruency effects on the identification of disoriented shapes[J].Journal of experimental psychology:human perception and performance.1990,16(2):351-364.
[120] Gauthier I, Tarr M J. Orientation priming of novel shapes in the context of viewpoint-dependent reccgnition[J]. PERCEPTION. 1997, 26(1): 51-73.
[121] Tarr M J, Gauthier I. Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class?[J]. COGNITION. 1998, 67(1-2): 73-110.
[122] Ullman S. Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy[J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES. 2007, 11(2): 58-64.
[123] Ullman S, Vidal-Naquet M, Sali E. Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification[J]. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE. 2002, 5(7): 682-687.
[124] Wagemans J. High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition - Ullman,S[J]. JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 1997, 41(3): 293-298.
[125] Graf M. Coordinate transformations in object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN.2006, 132(6): 920-945.
[126] Graf M, Raping D, Bulthoff H H. Orientation congruency effects for familiar objects - Coordinate transformations in object recognition[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. 2005, 16(3): 214-221.
[127] Graf M, Kaping D, Bulthoff H H. Orientation congruency effect in object recognition[J].PERCEPTION. 2003, 32S: 117.
[128] Rhodes G I, Lee K, Byatt G. Caricature Identification: A test of the face-space framework.[J],INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE. 2000, 41S(4): 224.
[129] Rhodes G, Byatt G, Tremewan T, et al. Facial distinctiveness and the power of carica!ures[J],PERCEPTION. 1997, 26(2): 207-223.
[130] Maclin O H, Malpass R S. Last but not least - The ambiguous-race face illusion[J]. PERCEPTION.2003, 32(2): 249-252.
[131] Maclin O H, Malpass R S. Racial categorization of faces - The ambiguous race face effect[J].PSYCHOLOGY PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW. 2001, 7(1): 98-118.
[132] Fallshore M, Schooler J W. Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise[J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION. 1995, 21(6):1608-1623.
[133] Rhodes G, Brake S, Taylor K, et al. Expertise and cofigural coding in face recognition[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. 1989, 80(3): 313-331.
[134]Golby A J,Gabrieli J,Chiao J Y,et al.Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2001,4(8):845-850.
[135]牟炜民,赵民涛,李晓鸥.人类空间记忆和空间巡航[J].心理科学进展.2006(04):497-504.
[136]赵民涛,牟炜民.多视点学习条件下空间表征的朝向特异性[J].心理学报.2005(03):308-313.
[137]Mou W M,Xiao C L,Mcnamara T P.Reference directions and reference objects in spatial memory of a briefly viewed layout[J].COGNITION.2008,108(1):136-154.
[138]Mou W M,Mcnamara T P,Valiquette C M,et al.Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.2004,30(1):142-157.
[139]Mou W M,Mcnamara T P,Rump B,et al.Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.2006,32(6):1274-1290.
[140]Andrew T D.eye tracking methodology:theory & Practice[M].New York,NY:Springer US Sales Department,2007.
[141]Althoff R R,Cohen N J.Eye-movement-based memory effect:A reprocessing effect in face perception[J].JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION.1999,25(4):997-1010.
[142]Mertens I,Siegmund H,Grusser O J.Gaze motor asymmetries in the perception of faces during a memory task[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.1993,31(9):989-998.
[143]Henderson J M,Falk R J,Minut S,et al.Gaze control for face learing and recognition ih humans and machines[M].In T.Shipley & P.Kellman(Eds),2001:463-481.
[144]Le S,Raufaste E,Roussel S,et al.Implicit face perception in a patient with visual agnosia?Evidence from behavioural and eye-tracking analyses[J].NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2003,41(6):702-712.
[145]Trepagnier C,Sebrechts M M,Peterson R.Atypical face gaze in autism[J].CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR.2002,5(3):213-217.
[146]Schyns P G,Bonnar L,Gosselin F.Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the(?)se of visual information[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2002,13(5):402-409.
[147]Gosselin F,Schyns P G.Bubbles:a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks[J].VISION RESEARCH.2001,41(17):2261-2271.
[148]Bennett P J,Sekuler A B,Gaspar C.Using response classification to examine the face-inversion effect[J].PERCEPTION.2002,31S:105.
[149]Hsiao J H,Cottrell G.Two fixations suffice in face recognition[J].PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.2008 19(10):998-1006.
[150]Barton J,Radcliffe N,Cherkasova M V,et al.Information processing during face recognition:The effects of familiarity,inversion,and morphing on scanning fixations[J].PERCEPTION.2006,35(8):1089-1105.
[151]Rothstein J M,Roy S H,Wolf S L.Rehabilitation Specialist's Handbook[M].3rd edition ed.Davis,F A,2005.
[152]Xu Y D.Revisiting the role of the fusiform face area in visual expertise[J].CEREBRAL CORTEX.2005,15(8):1234-1242.
[153]Robert L S.Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist:an fMRI study[J].LEONARDO.2001,34(1):31-34,
[154]Gaxia W,Jing L,Youfa L.Brain sturcture in sport experts on MR Imaging Studies with Voxel-Based Morphometry[J].Progress in natural science.2009,(in press).
[155]李琰琰.二维模式专家化识别的加工机制初探[D].杭州:浙江大学,2005.
[156]Liu J,Harris A,Kanwisher N.Stages of processing in face perception:an MEG study[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2002,5(9):910-916.
[157]Yovel G,Kanwisher N.Face perception:Domain specific,not process specific[J].NEURON.2004,44(5):889-898.
[158]Kanwisher N.Domain specificity in face perception[J].NATURE NEUROSCIENCE.2000,3(8):759-763.
[159]Mckone E,Kanwisher N.Does the human brain process objects of expertise like faces? A review of the evidence[M].From Monkey Brain to Human Brain,Dehaene S,Duhamel J,Hauser M,et al,MIT Press,2005.