Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The inversion effect on gaze perception reflects processing of component information

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When faces are turned upside-down they are much more difficult to recognize than other objects. This “face inversion effect” has often been explained in terms of configural processing, which is impaired when faces are rotated away from the upright. Here we report a “gaze inversion effect” and discuss whether it is related to configural face processing of the whole face. Observers reported the gaze locations of photographed upright or inverted faces. When whole faces were presented, we found an inversion effect both for constant errors and observer sensitivity. These results were closely replicated when only the eyes were visible. Together, our findings suggest that gaze processing is largely based on component-based information from the eye region. Processing this information is orientation-sensitive and does not seem to rely on configural processing of the whole face.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Constant errors: Vertical direction×group: F (2,15)=2.484, P=0.117, horizontal direction×group: F (2,15)=0.506, P=0.613, orientation×group: F (2,15)=.219, P=0.806, vertical direction×horizontal direction×group: F (2,15)=0.568, P=0.579, vertical direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.291, P=0.752, horizontal direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.468, P=0.635, vertical direction×horizontal direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.089, P=0.916.

  2. Standard deviations: Vertical direction×group: F (2,15)=0.698, P=0.513, horizontal direction×group: F (2,15)=0.987, P=0.396, orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.721, P=0.502, vertical direction×horizontal direction×group: F (2,15)=0.692, P=0.516, vertical direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.335, P=0.721, horizontal direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.985, P=0.396, vertical direction×horizontal direction×orientation×group: F (2,15)=0.451, P=0.645.

References

  • Ando S (2002). Luminance-induced shift in the apparent direction of gaze. Perception 31(6):657–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anstis SM, Mayhew JW, Morley T (1969) The perception of where a face or television ‘portrait’ is looking. Am J Psychol 82:474–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen S (1995a) Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen S (1995b) The eye direction detector (EDD) and the shared attention mechanism (SAM): two cases for evolutionary psychology. In: Moore C, Dunham PJ (eds) Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp 41–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce V (1988) Recognising faces. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey S, Diamond R (1977) From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. Science 195:312–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cline MG (1967) The perception of where a person is looking. Am J Psychol 80:41–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farah MJ, Tanaka JW, Drain HM (1995) What causes the face inversion effect? J Exp Psychol: Hum Percep Perform 21:628–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gale C, Monk AF (2000) Where am I looking? The accuracy of video-mediated gaze awareness. Percept Psychophys 62(3):586–595

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ, Pick AD (1962) Perception of another person’s looking behavior. Am J Psychol 76:86–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselmo ME, Rolls ET, Baylis CG (1989) The role of expression and identity in the face-selective responses of neurons in the temporal visual cortex of the monkey. Exp Brain Res 32:203–218

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Sci 4:223–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI (2002) Human neural systems for face recognition and social communication. Biol Psychiatry 51:59–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins J, Langton SRH (2003) Configural processing in the perception of eye-gaze direction. Perception 32:1181–1188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi H, Kohshima S (1997) Unique morphology of the human eye. Nature 387:767–768

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi H, Kohshima S (2001a) Evolution of the human eye as a device for communication. In: Matsuzawa T (ed) Primate origins of human cognition and behavior. Springer, Tokyo, pp 383–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi H, Kohshima S (2001b) Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. J Hum Evol 40:419–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langton SRH, Watt RJ, Bruce V (2000) Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends Cogn Sci 4(2):50–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leder H, Bruce V (2000) When inverted faces are recognized: the role of configural information in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol 53A:513–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee K, Eskritt M, Symons LA, Muir D (1998) Children’s use of triadic eye gaze information for “mind reading”. Dev Psychol 34(3):525–539

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Masame K (1990) Perception of where a person is looking: overestimation and underestimation of gaze direction. Tohoku Psychologica Folia 49:33–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer D, Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ (2002) The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci 6(6):255–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nachson I, Shechory M (2002) Effect of inversion on the recognition of external and internal facial features. Acta Psychologica 109:227–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perret DI, Hietanen JK, Oram MW, Benson PJ (1992) Organization and functions of cells in the macaque temporal cortex. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 335:23–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakover S (2002) Featural versus configurational information in faces: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Br J Psychol 93:1–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger A, Carbon CC, Leder H (2003a) Expert face processing: Specialization and constraints. In: Schwarzer G, Leder H (eds) Development of face processing. Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger A, Hofer F, Ryf S (2003b) Configural information is processed differently in perception and recognition of faces. Vis Res 43:1501–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy JH, Bartlett JC (1996) Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information of faces. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 22:904–915

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sergent J (1984) An investigation into component and configurational processes underlying face recognition. Br J Psychol 75:221–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Symons L, Lee K, Cedrone CC, Nishimura M (2004) What are you looking at? Acuity for triadic eye gaze. J Gen Psychol 131:451–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka JW, Farah MJ (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A 46(2):225–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine T (1988) Upside-down faces: a review of the effects of inversion upon face recognition. Br J Psychol 79:471–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81:141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant to AS from the European Commission (CogVis, IST-2000-29375) and by a grant from the British Academy (LRG 31696) to MHF. JSL was partly supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 611-066052).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bülthoff, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Spemannstr. 38, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Adrian Schwaninger

  2. University of Zurich, Switzerland

    Adrian Schwaninger & Janek S. Lobmaier

  3. University of Dundee, Scotland, UK

    Martin H. Fischer

Authors
  1. Adrian Schwaninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janek S. Lobmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin H. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Schwaninger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J.S. & Fischer, M.H. The inversion effect on gaze perception reflects processing of component information. Exp Brain Res 167, 49–55 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2367-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2367-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation