Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?

  • Review
  • Published:
Neuroscience Bulletin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present article we review behavioral and neurophysiological studies on face processing in adults and in early development. From the existing empirical and theoretical literature we derive three aspects that distinguish face processing from the processing of other visual object categories. Each of these aspects is discussed from a developmental perspective. First, faces are recognized and represented at the individual level rather than at the basic level. Second, humans typically acquire extensive expertise in individuating faces from early on in development. And third, more than other objects, faces are processed holistically. There is a quantitative difference in the amount of visual experience for faces and other object categories in that the amount of expertise typically acquired for faces is greater than that for other object categories. In addition, we discuss possible qualitative differences in experience for faces and objects. For instance, there is evidence for a sensitive period in infancy for building up a holistic face representation and for perceptual narrowing for faces of one’s own species and race. We conclude our literature review with questions for future research, for instance, regarding the exact relationship between behavioral and neuronal markers of face processing across development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson MH, Dziurawiec S, Ellis H, Morton J. Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition 1991, 40: 1–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sai FZ. The role of the mother’s voice in developing mother’s face preference: Evidence for intermodal perception at birth. Infant Child Dev 2005, 14: 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bushnell IWR, Sai F, Mullin JT. Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. Br J Dev Psychol 1989, 7: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun MM. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci 1997, 17: 4302–4311.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McKone E, Kanwisher N, Duchaine BC. Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends Cogn Sci 2007, 11: 8–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gauthier I, Tarr MJ, Anderson AW, Skudlarski P, Gore JC. Activation of the middle fusiform ‚face area ‘increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nat Neurosci 1999, 2: 568–573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gauthier I, Nelson CA. The development of face expertise. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2001, 11: 219–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tanaka JW. The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. J Exp Psychol Gen 2001, 130: 534–543.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Anaki D, Bentin S. Familiarity effects on categorization levels of faces and objects. Cognition 2009, 111: 144–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosch E, Mervis CB, Gray WD, Johnson DM, Boyes-Braem P. Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn Psychol 1976, 8: 382–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pascalis O, de Vivies XD, Anzures G, Quinn PC, Slater AM, Tanaka JW, et al. Development of Face Processing. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2011, 2: 666–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maurer D, Grand RL, Mondloch CJ. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci 2002, 6: 255–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Farah MJ, Wilson KD, Drain M, Tanaka JN. What is “special” about face perception? Psychol Rev 1998, 105: 482–498.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wong AC, Palmeri TJ, Gauthier I. Conditions for facelike expertise with objects: becoming a Ziggerin expert—but which type? Psychol Sci 2009, 20: 1108–1117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bruce V, Young AW. Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol 1986, 77: 305–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sinha P, Balas B, Ostrovsky YM, Russell R. Face recognition by humans: Nineteen results all computer vision researchers should know about. Proc IEEE 2006, 94: 1948–1962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson KE, Mervis CB. Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. J Exp Psychol Gen 1997, 126: 248–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Scott LS, Monesson A. The origin of biases in face perception. Psychol Sci 2009, 20: 676–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yin RK. Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 1969, 81: 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Freire A, Lee K, Symons LA. The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence. Perception 2000, 29: 159–170.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Robbins R, McKone E. No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks. Cognition 2007, 103: 34–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leder H, Candrian G, Huber O, Bruce V. Configural features in the context of upright and inverted faces. Perception 2001, 30: 73–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson P. Margaret Thatcher: a new illusion. Perception 1980, 9: 483–484.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McKone E, Yovel G. Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing. Psychon Bull Rev 2009, 16: 778–797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rossion B. Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychol 2008, 132: 300–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwaninger A, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH. Computational modeling of face recognition based on psychophysical experiments. Swiss J Psychol 2004, 63: 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Diamond R, Carey S. Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J Exp Psychol Gen 1986, 115: 107–117.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rossion B, Gauthier I, Goffaux V, Tarr MJ, Crommelinck M. Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized facelike electrophysiological responses. Psychol Sci 2002, 13: 250–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tanaka JW, Farah MJ. Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A 1993, 46: 225–245.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Young AW, Hellawell D, Hay DC. Configurational information in face perception. Perception 1987, 16: 747–759.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rossion B, Boremanse A. Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: evidence from the face composite illusion. J Vis 2008, 8: 3 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Riesenhuber M, Wolff BS. Task effects, performance levels, features, configurations, and holistic face processing: A reply to Rossion. Acta Psychol 2009, 132: 286–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Richler JJ, Cheung OS, Gauthier I. Holistic processing predicts face recognition. Psychol Sci 2011, 22: 464–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gauthier I, Bukach C. Should we reject the expertise hypothesis? Cognition 2007, 103: 322–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McKone E, Robbins R. The evidence rejects the expertise hypothesis: reply to Gauthier & Bukach. Cognition 2007, 103: 331–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Farroni T, Johnson MH, Menon E, Zulian L, Faraguna D, Csibra G. Newborns’ preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102: 17245–17250.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson MH. Subcortical face processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005, 6: 766–774.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Giorgio E, Leo I, Pascalis O, Simion F. Is the face-perception system human-specific at birth? Dev Psychol 2012, 48(4): 1083–1090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Crookes K, McKone E. Early maturity of face recognition: no childhood development of holistic processing, novel face encoding, or face-space. Cognition 2009, 111: 219–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McKone E, Crookes K, Kanwisher N. The cognitive and neural development of face recognition in humans. In: Gazzaniga MS (Ed.). The Cognitive Neurosciences. IV edition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, 2009: 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pascalis O, de Haan M, Nelson CA. Is face processing species-specific during the first year of life? Science 2002, 296: 1321–1323.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kuhl PK, Tsao FM, Liu HM. Foreign-language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100: 9096–9101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kelly DJ, Quinn PC, Slater AM, Lee K, Ge L, Pascalis O. The other-race effect develops during infancy: evidence of perceptual narrowing. Psychol Sci 2007, 18: 1084–1089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Anzures G, Quinn PC, Pascalis O, Slater AM, Lee K. Categorization, categorical perception, and asymmetry in infants’ representation of face race. Dev Sci 2010, 13: 553–564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Meissner CA, Brigham JC. Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Public Policy Law 2001, 7: 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lebrecht S, Pierce LJ, Tarr MJ, Tanaka JW. Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit racial bias. PLoS One 2009, 4: e4215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. McGugin RW, Tanaka JW, Lebrecht S, Tarr MJ, Gauthier I. Racespecific perceptual discrimination improvement following short individuation training with faces. Cogn Sci 2011, 35: 330–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Heron-Delaney M, Anzures G, Herbert JS, Quinn PC, Slater AM, Tanaka JW, et al. Perceptual training prevents the emergence of the other race effect during infancy. PLoS One 2011, 6: e19858.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. de Haan M, Johnson MH, Maurer D, Perrett D. Recognition of individual faces and average face prototypes by 1- and 3-month-old infants. Cogn Dev 2001, 16: 659–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Farroni T, Valenza E, Simion F, Umilta C. Configural processing at birth: evidence for perceptual organisation. Perception 2000, 29: 355–372.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Macchi Cassia V, Turati C, Simion F. Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns’ face preference? Psychol Sci 2004, 15: 379–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Turati C, Simion F, Milani I, Umilta C. Newborns’ preference for faces: what is crucial? Dev Psychol 2002, 38: 875–882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Leo I, Simion F. Face processing at birth: a Thatcher illusion study. Dev Sci 2009, 12: 492–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Schwarzer G, Zauner N, Jovanovic B. Evidence of a shift from featural to configural face processing in infancy. Dev Sci 2007, 10: 452–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. de Schonen S, Mathivet E. Hemispheric asymmetry in a face discrimination task in infants. Child Dev1990, 61: 1192–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Deruelle C, de Schonen S. Hemispheric asymmetries in visual pattern processing in infancy. Brain Cogn 1991, 16: 151–179.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Salomao SR, Ventura DF. Large sample population age norms for visual acuities obtained with Vistech-Teller Acuity Cards. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995, 36: 657–670.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Banks MS, Dannemiller JL. Infant visual psychophysics. In: Salapatek P, Cohen LB (Eds.). Handbook of Infant Perception. New York: Academic Press, 1987: 115–184.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hickey TL, Peduzzi JD. Structure and development of the visual system. In: Salapatek P, Cohen LB (Eds.). Handbook of Infant Perception. New York: Academic Press, 1987: 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Atkinson J. Early visual development: differential functioning of parvocellular and magnocellular pathways. Eye (Lond) 1992, 6(Pt 2): 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hickey TL. Postnatal development of the human lateral geniculate nucleus: relationship to a critical period for the visual system. Science 1977, 198: 836–838.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Salapatek P. Pattern perception in early infancy. In: Cohen LB, Salapatek P (Eds.). Infant Perception: From Sensation to Cognition. New York: Academic Press, 1975: 133–248.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bronson GW. Changes in infants’ visual scanning across the 2- to 14-week age period. J Exp Child Psychol 1990, 49: 101–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Ferguson KT, Kulkofsky S, Cashon CH, Casasola M. The development of specialized processing of own-race faces in infancy. Infancy 2009, 14: 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mondloch CJ, Elms N, Maurer D, Rhodes G, Hayward WG, Tanaka JW, et al. Processes underlying the cross-race effect: an investigation of holistic, featural, and relational processing of own-race versus other-race faces. Perception 2010, 39: 1065–1085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bukach CM, Cottle J, Ubiwa J, Miller J. Individuation experience predicts other-race effects in holistic processing for both Caucasian and Black participants. Cognition 2012, 123: 319–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tanaka JW, Kiefer M, Bukach CM. A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition 2004, 93: B1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Michel C, Rossion B, Han J, Chung CS, Caldara R. Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychol Sci 2006, 17: 608–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. McKone E, Brewer JL, MacPherson S, Rhodes G, Hayward WG. Familiar other-race faces show normal holistic processing and are robust to perceptual stress. Perception 2007, 36: 224–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ, Maurer D, Brent HP. Impairment in holistic face processing following early visual deprivation. Psychol Sci 2004, 15: 762–768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Rossion B, Jacques C. Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170. Neuroimage 2008, 39: 1959–1979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. George N, Jemel B, Fiori N, Chaby L, Renault B. Electrophysiological correlates of facial decision: insights from upright and upside-down Mooney-face perception. Cogn Brain Res2005, 24: 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Vuilleumier P, Sagiv N, Hazeltine E, Poldrack RA, Swick D, Rafal RD, et al. Neural fate of seen and unseen faces in visuospatial neglect: a combined event-related functional MRI and event-related potential study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001, 98: 3495–3500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Itier RJ, Taylor MJ. Inversion and contrast polarity reversal affect both encoding and recognition processes of unfamiliar faces: a repetition study using ERPs. Neuroimage 2002, 15: 353–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Itier RJ, Taylor MJ. Source analysis of the N170 to faces and objects. Neuroreport 2004, 15: 1261–1265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hoffman EA, Haxby JV. Distinct representations of eye gaze and identity in the distributed human neural system for face perception. Nat Neurosci 2000, 3: 80–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kovacs G, Zimmer M, Banko E, Harza I, Antal A, Vidnyanszky Z. Electrophysiological correlates of visual adaptation to faces and body parts in humans. Cereb Cortex 2006, 16: 742–753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Harris A, Nakayama K. Rapid adaptation of the m170 response: importance of face parts. Cereb Cortex 2008, 18: 467–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Harris A, Nakayama K. Rapid face-selective adaptation of an early extrastriate component in MEG. Cereb Cortex 2007, 17: 63–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Eimer M, Kiss M, Nicholas S. Response profile of the face-sensitive N170 component: a rapid adaptation study. Cereb Cortex 2010, 20: 2442–2452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Eimer M, Gosling A, Nicholas S, Kiss M. The N170 component and its links to configural face processing: A rapid neural adaptation study. Brain Res 2011, 1376: 76–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Gliga T, Dehaene-Lambertz G. Development of a view-invariant representation of the human head. Cognition 2007, 102: 261–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Guillaume C, Guillery-Girard B, Chaby L, Lebreton K, Hugueville L, Eustache F, et al. The time course of repetition effects for familiar faces and objects: an ERP study. Brain Res 2009, 1248: 149–161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Maurer U, Rossion B, McCandliss BD. Category specificity in early perception: face and word n170 responses differ in both lateralization and habituation properties. Front Hum Neurosci 2008, 2: 18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mercure E, Cohen Kadosh K, Johnson MH. The n170 shows differential repetition effects for faces, objects, and orthographic stimuli. Front Hum Neurosci 2011, 5: 6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Eimer M. Does the face-specific N170 component reflect the activity of a specialized eye processor? Neuroreport 1998, 9: 2945–2948.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Bentin S, Allison T, Puce A, Perez E, McCarthy G. Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. J Cogn Neurosci 1996, 8: 551–565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Schweinberger SR, Pickering EC, Jentzsch I, Burton AM, Kaufmann JM. Event-related brain potential evidence for a response of inferior temporal cortex to familiar face repetitions. Cogn Brain Res 2002, 14: 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Schweinberger SR, Pfütze EM, Sommer W. Repetition priming and associative priming of face recognition: Evidence from event-related potentials. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1995, 21: 722–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Pierce LJ, Scott LS, Boddington S, Droucker D, Curran T, Tanaka JW. The n250 brain potential to personally familiar and newly learned faces and objects. Front Hum Neurosci 2011, 5: 111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Scott LS, Tanaka JW, Sheinberg DL, Curran T. A reevaluation of the electrophysiological correlates of expert object processing. J Cogn Neurosci 2006, 18: 1453–1465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Begleiter H, Porjesz B, Wang W. Event-related brain potentials differentiate priming and recognition to familiar and unfamiliar faces. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995, 94: 41–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Pfütze EM, Sommer W, Schweinberger SR. Age-related slowing in face and name recognition: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychol Aging 2002, 17: 140–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Caharel S, d’Arripe O, Ramon M, Jacques C, Rossion B. Early adaptation to repeated unfamiliar faces across viewpoint changes in the right hemisphere: evidence from the N170 ERP component. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47: 639–643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Itier RJ, Taylor MJ. Effects of repetition learning on upright, inverted and contrast-reversed face processing using ERPs. Neuroimage 2004, 21: 1518–1532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kaufmann JM, Schweinberger SR. The faces you remember: caricaturing shape facilitates brain processes reflecting the acquisition of new face representations. Biol Psychol 2012, 89: 21–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Bindemann M, Burton AM, Leuthold H, Schweinberger SR. Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. Psychophysiology 2008, 45: 535–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Schweinberger SR, Huddy V, Burton AM. N250r: a face-selective brain response to stimulus repetitions. Neuroreport 2004, 15: 1501–1505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Itier RJ, Latinus M, Taylor MJ. Face, eye and object early processing: what is the face specificity? Neuroimage 2006, 29: 667–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Rossion B, Gauthier I, Tarr MJ, Despland P, Bruyer R, Linotte S, 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. Neuroreport 2000, 11: 69–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Rossion B, Delvenne JF, Debatisse D, Goffaux V, Bruyer R, Crommelinck M, et al. Spatio-temporal localization of the face inversion effect: an event-related potentials study. Biol Psychol 1999, 50: 173–189.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Scott LS, Monesson A. Experience-dependent neural specialization during infancy. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48: 1857–1861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Itier RJ, Alain C, Sedore K, McIntosh AR. Early face processing specificity: it’s in the eyes! J Cogn Neurosci 2007, 19: 1815–1826.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Tanaka JW, Curran T. A neural basis for expert object recognition. Psychol Sci 2001, 12: 43–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Thierry G, Martin CD, Downing P, Pegna AJ. Controlling for interstimulus perceptual variance abolishes N170 face selectivity. Nat Neurosci 2007, 10: 505–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Aguirre GK, Singh R, D’Esposito M. Stimulus inversion and the responses of face and object-sensitive cortical areas. Neuroreport 1999, 10: 189–194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Haxby JV, Ungerleider LG, Clark VP, Schouten JL, Hoffman EA, Martin A. The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception. Neuron 1999, 22: 189–199.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Itier RJ, Batty M. Neural bases of eye and gaze processing: the core of social cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2009, 33: 843–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Bentin S, Golland Y, Flevaris A, Robertson LC, Moscovitch M. Processing the trees and the forest during initial stages of face perception: Electrophysiological evidence. J Cogn Neurosci 2006, 18: 1406–1421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Letourneau SM, Mitchell TV. Behavioral and ERP measures of holistic face processing in a composite task. Brain Cogn 2008, 67: 234–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Jacques C, Rossion B. The initial representation of individual faces in the right occipito-temporal cortex is holistic: electrophysiological evidence from the composite face illusion. J Vis 2009, 9: 8, 1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Jacques C, Rossion B. Misaligning face halves increases and delays the N170 specifically for upright faces: Implications for the nature of early face representations. Brain Res 2009, 1318: 96–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Ishizu T, Ayabe T, Kojima S. Configurational factors in the perception of faces and non-facial objects: an ERP study. Int J Neurosci 2008, 118: 955–966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Boutsen L, Humphreys GW, Praamstra P, Warbrick T. Comparing neural correlates of configural processing in faces and objects: an ERP study of the Thatcher illusion. Neuroimage 2006, 32: 352–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Milivojevic B, Clapp WC, Johnson BW, Corballis MC. Turn that frown upside down: ERP effects of thatcherization of misorientated faces. Psychophysiology 2003, 40: 967–978.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Carbon CC, Schweinberger SR, Kaufmann JM, Leder H. The Thatcher illusion seen by the brain: an event-related brain potentials study. Cogn Brain Res 2005, 24: 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Scott LS, Nelson CA. Featural and configural face processing in adults and infants: a behavioral and electrophysiological investigation. Perception 2006, 35: 1107–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. de Haan M, Johnson MH, Halit H. Development of face-sensitive event-related potentials during infancy: a review. Int J Psychophysiol 2003, 51: 45–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Johnson MH, Griffin R, Csibra G, Halit H, Farroni T, de Haan M, et al. The emergence of the social brain network: evidence from typical and atypical development. Dev Psychopathol 2005, 17: 599–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Halit H, Csibra G, Volein A, Johnson MH. Face-sensitive cortical processing in early infancy. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2004, 45: 1228–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. de Haan M, Pascalis O, Johnson MH. Specialization of neural mechanisms underlying face recognition in human infants. J Cogn Neurosci 2002, 14: 199–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Halit H, de Haan M, Johnson MH. Cortical specialisation for face processing: face-sensitive event-related potential components in 3- and 12-month-old infants. Neuroimage 2003, 19: 1180–1193.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Macchi Cassia V, Kuefner D, Westerlund A, Nelson CA. A behavioural and ERP investigation of 3-month-olds’ face preferences. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44: 2113–2125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Parise E, Handl A, Striano T. Processing faces in dyadic and triadic contexts. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48: 518–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Gliga T, Dehaene-Lambertz G. Structural encoding of body and face in human infants and adults. J Cogn Neurosci 2005, 17: 1328–1340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Maurer D, Barrera M. Infants’ perception of natural and distorted arrangements of a schematic face. Child Dev 1981, 52: 196–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. de Haan M, Nelson CA. Brain activity differentiates face and object processing in 6-month-old infants. Dev Psychol 1999, 35: 1113–1121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Hoehl S, Reid VM, Parise E, Handl A, Palumbo L, Striano T. Looking at eye gaze processing and its neural correlates in infancy — implications for social development and autism spectrum disorder. Child Dev2009, 80: 968–985.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Taylor MJ, Edmonds GE, McCarthy G, Allison T. Eyes first! Eye processing develops before face processing in children. Neuroreport 2001, 12: 1671–1676.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Macchi Cassia V, Kuefner D, Westerlund A, Nelson CA. Modulation of face-sensitive event-related potentials by canonical and distorted human faces: the role of vertical symmetry and up-down featural arrangement. J Cogn Neurosci 2006, 18: 1343–1358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Kuefner D, de Heering A, Jacques C, Palmero-Soler E, Rossion B. Early visually evoked electrophysiological responses over the hu man brain (P1, N170) show stable patterns of face-sensitivity from 4 years to adulthood. Front Hum Neurosci 2010, 3: 67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Taylor MJ, Batty M, Itier RJ. The faces of development: a review of early face processing over childhood. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, 16: 1426–1442.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Hsiao JH, Cottrell GW. Not all visual expertise is holistic, but it may be leftist: the case of Chinese character recognition. Psychol Sci 2009, 20: 455–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Wong AC, Gauthier I. An analysis of letter expertise in a levels-of-categorization framework. Vis Cogn 2006, 15: 854–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Richler JJ, Wong YK, Gauthier I. Perceptual expertise as a shift from strategic interference to automatic holistic processing. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2011, 20: 129–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Wong AC, Bukach CM, Yuen C, Yang L, Leung S, Greenspon E. Holistic processing of words modulated by reading experience. PLoS One 2011, 6: e20753.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Bukach CM, Gauthier I, Tarr MJ. Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework. Trends Cogn Sci 2006, 10: 159–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Scott LS. Mechanisms underlying the emergence of object representations during infancy. J Cogn Neurosci 2011, 23: 2935–2944.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Sugita Y. Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105: 394–398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Jiang X, Rosen E, Zeffiro T, Vanmeter J, Blanz V, Riesenhuber M. Evaluation of a shape-based model of human face discrimination using fMRI and behavioral techniques. Neuron 2006, 50: 159–172.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. McCleery JP, Zhang L, Ge L, Wang Z, Christiansen EM, Lee K, et al. The roles of visual expertise and visual input in the face inversion effect: behavioral and neurocomputational evidence. Vis Res 2008, 48: 703–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Stollhoff R, Kennerknecht I, Elze T, Jost J. A computational model of dysfunctional facial encoding in congenital prosopagnosia. Neural Netw 2011, 24: 652–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Hole GJ, George PA, Dunsmore V. Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception 1999, 28: 341–359.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Kemp R, McManus C, Pigott T. Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception 1990, 19: 531–543.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Tottenham N, Tanaka JW, Leon AC, McCarry T, Nurse M, Hare TA, et al. The NimStim set of facial expressions: judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Res 2009, 168: 242–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Hauptstr. 47-51, Heidelberg, 69117, Germany

    Stefanie Hoehl & Stefanie Peykarjou

Authors
  1. Stefanie Hoehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Peykarjou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Hoehl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoehl, S., Peykarjou, S. The early development of face processing — What makes faces special?. Neurosci. Bull. 28, 765–788 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-012-1280-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-012-1280-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation