User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias.

Primary tabs

Quek, Genevieve [UCL] Finkbeiner, Matthew [NSW]

Recent evidence suggests that face processing may be more robust in the upper visual field (UVF) than in the lower visual field (LVF). We asked whether this UVF advantage is due to an upward bias in participants' visuospatial attention. Participants classified the sex of a UVF or LVF target face that was preceded by a congruent or incongruent masked prime face. We manipulated spatial attention within subjects by varying the predictability of target location across sessions (UVF:LVF ratio of 50:50 on Day 1 and 20:80 on Day 2). When target location was unpredictable, priming emerged earlier in the UVF (~165 ms) than the LVF (~195 ms). This UVF advantage was reversed when targets were more likely to be presented in the LVF. Here priming arose earlier for LVF targets (~53 ms) than UVF targets (~165 ms). Critically, however, UVF primes were processed to the same degree regardless of whether spatial attention was diffuse (Day 1) or deployed elsewhere (Day 2). We conclude that, while voluntarily directed spatial attention is sufficient to modulate the processing of masked faces in the LVF, it is not sufficient to explain the UVF advantage for masked face processing.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Access type Accès restreint
Publication date 2016
Language Anglais
Journal information "Attention, Perception & Psychophysics" - Vol. 78, no.1, p. 52-68 (2015)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Springer New York LLC (New York)
issn 1943-3921
e-issn 1943-393X
Publication status Accepté/Sous presse
Affiliation UCL - SSH/IPSY - Psychological Sciences Research Institute
MESH Subject Attention ; Faces ; Lower visual field ; Upper visual field ; Vertical asymmetry
Keywords Attention ; Faces ; Lower visual field ; Upper visual field ; Vertical asymmetry
Links
  1. Afraz Arash, Pashkam Maryam Vaziri, Cavanagh Patrick, Spatial Heterogeneity in the Perception of Face and Form Attributes, 10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.017
  2. Akaike H., A new look at the statistical model identification, 10.1109/tac.1974.1100705
  3. Amenedo Elena, Pazo-Alvarez Paula, Cadaveira Fernando, Vertical asymmetries in pre-attentive detection of changes in motion direction, 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.02.001
  4. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M., Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items, 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
  5. Bates, D. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5, 27–30.
  6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42, http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/ .
  7. Biederman Irving, Mezzanotte Robert J., Rabinowitz Jan C., Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations, 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90007-x
  8. Bradshaw John L., Nettleton Norman C., Nathan Greg, Wilson Lyn, Bisecting rods and lines: Effects of horizontal and vertical posture on left-side underestimation by normal subjects, 10.1016/0028-3932(85)90029-6
  9. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Carrasco Marisa, P.Talgar Cigdem, Cameron E. Leslie, Characterizing visual performance fields: effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size, 10.1163/15685680152692015
  11. Chaikin J. D., Corbin H. H., Volkmann J., Mapping a Field of Short-Time Visual Search, 10.1126/science.138.3547.1327
  12. Chambers Kenneth W., McBeath Michael K., Schiano Diane J., Metz Eric G., Tops are more salient than bottoms, 10.3758/bf03205535
  13. Chan Annie W-Y, Kravitz Dwight J, Truong Sandra, Arizpe Joseph, Baker Chris I, Cortical representations of bodies and faces are strongest in commonly experienced configurations, 10.1038/nn.2502
  14. Christman Stephen D., Local-global processing in the upper versus lower visual fields, 10.3758/bf03334927
  15. Coolican Jamesie, Eskes Gail A., McMullen Patricia A., Lecky Erin, Perceptual biases in processing facial identity and emotion, 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.07.001
  16. Cumming Geoff, Finch Sue, Inference by Eye: Confidence Intervals and How to Read Pictures of Data., 10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.170
  17. Davenport Jodi L., Consistency effects between objects in scenes, 10.3758/bf03193280
  18. Drain Maxwell, Reuter-Lorenz Patricia A., Vertical orienting control: Evidence for attentional bias and "neglect" in the intact brain., 10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.139
  19. Drummond Aaron, Tlauka Michael, Vertical representational biases in healthy university students, 10.1080/09658211.2011.652638
  20. Edwards Mark, Badcock David R, Asymmetries in the Sensitivity to Motion in Depth: A Centripetal Bias, 10.1068/p221013
  21. Fecteau Jillian H., Enns James T., Kingstone Alan, Competition-Induced Visual Field Differences in Search, 10.1111/1467-9280.00275
  22. Felisberti Fatima M., McDermott Mark R., Spatial Location in Brief, Free-Viewing Face Encoding Modulates Contextual Face Recognition, 10.1068/i0582
  23. Finkbeiner, M., Coltheart, M., & Coltheart, V. (2014). Pointing the way to new constraints on the dynamical claims of computational models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 172–185.
  24. Finkbeiner Matthew, Palermo Romina, The Role of Spatial Attention in Nonconscious Processing : A Comparison of Face and Nonface Stimuli, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02256.x
  25. Fize D., Cauchoix M., Fabre-Thorpe M., Humans and monkeys share visual representations, 10.1073/pnas.1016213108
  26. Fortenbaugh F. C., Silver M. A., Robertson L. C., Individual differences in visual field shape modulate the effects of attention on the lower visual field advantage in crowding, 10.1167/15.2.19
  27. Haxby J. V., Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex, 10.1126/science.1063736
  28. Holmes Amanda, Kiss Monika, Eimer Martin, Attention modulates the processing of emotional expression triggered by foveal faces, 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.10.002
  29. Holmes Amanda, Vuilleumier Patrik, Eimer Martin, The processing of emotional facial expression is gated by spatial attention: evidence from event-related brain potentials, 10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00268-9
  30. Hood Bruce M., Willen J. Douglas, Driver Jon, Adult's Eyes Trigger Shifts of Visual Attention in Human Infants, 10.1111/1467-9280.00024
  31. Ishai A., Ungerleider L. G., Martin A., Schouten J. L., Haxby J. V., Distributed representation of objects in the human ventral visual pathway, 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9379
  32. Karayanidis Frini, Provost Alexander, Brown Scott, Paton Bryan, Heathcote Andrew, Switch-specific and general preparation map onto different ERP components in a task-switching paradigm : Switch-specific and general preparation in cued task-switching, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01115.x
  33. Kessler Klaus, Tipper Steven, Retrieval of implicit inhibitory processes: The impact of visual field, object-identity, and memory dynamics, 10.1080/13506280444000012a
  34. Kliegl Reinhold, Masson Michael E. J., Richter Eike M., A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming, 10.1080/13506280902986058
  35. Kok Peter, Jehee Janneke F.M., de Lange Floris P., Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex, 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034
  36. Kravitz Dwight J., Kriegeskorte Nikolaus, Baker Chris I., High-Level Visual Object Representations Are Constrained by Position, 10.1093/cercor/bhq042
  37. Kravitz Dwight J., Saleem Kadharbatcha S., Baker Chris I., Ungerleider Leslie G., Mishkin Mortimer, The ventral visual pathway: an expanded neural framework for the processing of object quality, 10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.011
  38. Langton Stephen R.H., Watt Roger J., Bruce Vicki, Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention, 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01436-9
  39. Levine Michael W., McAnany J. Jason, The relative capabilities of the upper and lower visual hemifields, 10.1016/j.visres.2005.04.001
  40. Liu, L., & Ioannides, A. A. (2010). Emotion separation is completed early and it depends on visual field presentation. PloS One, 5(3), e9790.
  41. Martin Alex, Wiggs Cheri L., Ungerleider Leslie G., Haxby James V., Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge, 10.1038/379649a0
  42. Masson, M. E. J., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 898–914.
  43. Naccache Lionel, Blandin Elise, Dehaene Stanislas, Unconscious Masked Priming Depends on Temporal Attention, 10.1111/1467-9280.00474
  44. Niebauer Christopher L., Christman Stephen D., Upper and lower visual field differences in categorical and coordinate judgments, 10.3758/bf03209471
  45. Oldfield R.C., The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory, 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
  46. Pessoa L., McKenna M., Gutierrez E., Ungerleider L. G., Neural processing of emotional faces requires attention, 10.1073/pnas.172403899
  47. Previc Fred H., Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: Its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications, 10.1017/s0140525x00080018
  48. Previc Fred H., Blume Jennifer L., Visual search asymmetries in three-dimensional space, 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90229-p
  49. Previc Fred H., Naegele Peter D., Target-tilt and vertical-hemifield asymmetries in free-scan search for 3-D targets, 10.3758/bf03194411
  50. Puri Amrita M., Wojciulik Ewa, Expectation both helps and hinders object perception, 10.1016/j.visres.2007.11.017
  51. Quek Genevieve L., Finkbeiner Matthew, Spatial and Temporal Attention Modulate the Early Stages of Face Processing: Behavioural Evidence from a Reaching Paradigm, 10.1371/journal.pone.0057365
  52. Quek Genevieve L., Finkbeiner Matthew, Face-sex categorization is better above fixation than below: Evidence from the reach-to-touch paradigm, 10.3758/s13415-014-0282-y
  53. Quek Genevieve L., Finkbeiner Matthew, Gaining the Upper Hand: Evidence of Vertical Asymmetry in Sex-Categorisation of Human Hands, 10.5709/acp-0164-8
  54. Reddy Leila, Reddy Lavanya, Koch Christof, Face identification in the near-absence of focal attention, 10.1016/j.visres.2006.01.020
  55. Reddy Leila, Wilken Patrick, Koch Christof, Face-gender discrimination is possible in the near-absence of attention, 10.1167/4.2.4
  56. Rezec Amy, Dobkins Karen, Attentional weighting: A possible account of visual field asymmetries in visual search?, 10.1163/1568568041920203
  57. Rubin N., Nakayama K., Shapley R., Enhanced Perception of Illusory Contours in the Lower Versus Upper Visual Hemifields, 10.1126/science.271.5249.651
  58. Schwarz Gideon, Estimating the Dimension of a Model, 10.1214/aos/1176344136
  59. Sereno M., Dale A., Reppas J., Kwong K., Belliveau J., Brady T., Rosen B., Tootell R., Borders of multiple visual areas in humans revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging, 10.1126/science.7754376
  60. Skrandies W., The Upper and Lower Visual Field of Man: Electrophysiological and Functional Differences, Progress in Sensory Physiology (1987) ISBN:9783642710629 p.1-93, 10.1007/978-3-642-71060-5_1
  61. Summerfield Christopher, Egner Tobias, Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition, 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.003
  62. Talgar Cigdem P., Carrasco Marisa, Vertical meridian asymmetry in spatial resolution: Visual and attentional factors, 10.3758/bf03196326
  63. van Vugt Peter, Fransen Ingrid, Creten Wouter, Paquier Philippe, Line bisection performances of 650 normal children, 10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00130-x
  64. Vuilleumier Patrik, Armony Jorge L., Driver Jon, Dolan Raymond J., Effects of Attention and Emotion on Face Processing in the Human Brain, 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00328-2
  65. Wild Heather A., Barrett Susan E., Spence Melanie J., O'Toole Alice J., Cheng Yi D., Brooke Jessica, Recognition and Sex Categorization of Adults' and Children's Faces: Examining Performance in the Absence of Sex-Stereotyped Cues, 10.1006/jecp.1999.2554
  66. Willenbockel V., Sadr J., Fiset D., Horne G., Gosselin F., Tanaka J., The SHINE toolbox for controlling low-level image properties, 10.1167/10.7.653
  67. Woestenburg J.C., Verbaten M.N., Slangen J.L., The removal of the eye-movement artifact from the EEG by regression analysis in the frequency domain, 10.1016/0301-0511(83)90059-5
  68. Wojciulik, E., Kanwisher, N., & Driver, J. (1998). Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus: fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79(3), 1574–1578.
  69. Yund E.W, Efron R, Nichols D.R, Detectability as a function of spatial location: Effects of selective attention, 10.1016/0278-2626(90)90003-7
  70. Zeki S.M., Representation of central visual fields in prestriate cortex of monkey, 10.1016/0006-8993(69)90110-3
Bibliographic reference Quek, Genevieve ; Finkbeiner, Matthew. The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias.. In: Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 78, no.1, p. 52-68 (2015)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/172963