Orientation-invariance of individual differences in three face processing tasks. Issue 1 (9th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meinhardt, G.; Meinhardt-Injac, B.; Persike, M.
• Is Part Of: Royal Society open science. Volume 6:Issue 1(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-01-09
• Subjects: face inversion effect -- face-specific processing -- individual differences -- selective attention; Science -- Periodicals; 500
• DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2054-5703

Abstract

Abstract : Numerous studies have reported impairments in perception and recognition, and, particularly, in part-integration of faces following picture-plane inversion. Whether these findings support the notion that inversion changes face processing qualitatively remains a topic of debate. To examine whether associations and dissociations of the human face processing ability depend on stimulus orientation, we measured face recognition with the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT), along with experimental tests of face perception and selective attention to faces and non-face objects in a sample of 314 participants. Results showed strong inversion effects for all face-related tasks, and modest ones for non-face objects. Individual differences analysis revealed that the CFMT shared common variance with face perception and face-selective attention, however, independent of orientation. Regardless of whether predictor and criterion had same or different orientation, face recognition was best predicted by the same test battery. Principal component decomposition revealed a common factor for face recognition and face perception, a second common factor for face recognition and face-selective attention, and two unique factors. The patterns of factor loadings were nearly identical for upright and inverted presentation. These results indicate orientation-invariance of common variance in three domains of face processing. Since inversion impaired performance, but did not affect domain-related associations and dissociations, the findings suggest process-specific but orientation-general mechanisms. Specific limitations by constraints of individual differences analysis and test selection are discussed.