ISSN : 1226-9654
Although the use of face emoticons has become a common daily life, studies on the perception of facial emoticons are still rare. This study investigated the configural information processing of face emoticons and real faces (face photos) using ERP research methods. The successive presentation of different facial stimuli reduced N170 amplitude to facial stimuli compared to the mixed presentation of facial stimuli with other non-facial stimuli. This category-level repetition suppression effect for faces would occur when the same configural information processing underlying the N170 were repeated for each subsequent face (Maurer et al., 2008; Mercure, 2011). To examine the configural processing of face emoticon, we investigated category-level repetition suppression effect by manipulating the stimulus context. Face emoticons, face photos, and house icons were presented separately in separate blocks (homogeneous context) or were presented together in the same block (mixed context), and the effects of stimulus contexts on N170 and P1 were analyzed. The results showed that no context effect on P1 amplitude was found, and the magnitudes of P1 amplitude were in the order of face photo > face emoticon = house icon, which supports that P1 is sensitive to low-level perceptual properties and is not face-sensitive. The N170 amplitudes of face emoticons and face pictures except house icons were larger in the mixed context compared to the homogeneous context (category-level repetition suppression effect) which suggest that the processing of face emoticon rely on configural information processing similar to real face. N170 amplitudes of face emoticons and face photos were larger than those of house icons (face-sensitive N170 effect) in the mixed context, but only face photos except face emoticons showed face-sensitive N170 effect in the homogeneous context. Our findings suggest that the processing of real face rely on both configural information and face components information, but the processing of face emoticon rely on only configural information. Taken together, configural information plays a big role for the perception of even very simple emoticon faces, similar to real faces.
Albonico, A., Furubacke, A., Barton, J. J., & Oruc, I. (2018). Perceptual efficiency and the inversion effect for faces, words and houses. Vision Research, 153, 91-97.
Bentin, S., Allison, T., Puce, A., Perez, E., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 551-565.
Bentin, S., Taylor, M. J., Rousselet, G. A., Itier, R. J., Caldara, R., Schyns, P. G., . . . Rossion, B. (2007). Controlling interstimulus perceptual variance does not abolish N170 face sensitivity. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 801-802.
Boehm, S. G., Dering, B., & Thierry, G. (2011). Categorysensitivity in the N170 range: A question of topography and inversion, not one of amplitude. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2082-2089.
Bötzel, K., Schulze, S., & Stodieck, S. R. (1995). Scalp topography and analysis of intracranial sources of face-evoked potentials. Experimental Brain Research, 104, 135-143.
Carmel, D., & Bentin, S. (2002). Domain specificity versus expertise: factors influencing distinct processing of faces. Cognition, 83, 1-29.
Eimer, M. (2000a). Effects of face inversion on the structural encoding and recognition of faces: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 145-158.
Eimer, M. (2000b). The face-specific N170 component reflects late stages in the structural encoding of faces. Neuroreport, 11, 2319-2324.
Eimer, M. (2011). The face-sensitive N170 component of the event-related brain potential. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. Johnson, & J. Haxby, (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception (pp. 329-344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fang, F., & He, S. (2005). Viewer-centered object representation in the human visual system revealed by viewpoint aftereffects. Neuron, 45, 793-800.
Gantiva, C., Sotaquira, M., Araujo, A., & Cuervo, P. (2019). Cortical processing of human and Emoji faces: An ERP analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9, 1362-1370.
Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble”expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37, 1673-1682.
Goffaux V, Gauthier I., & Rossion B. (2003). Spatial scale contribution to early visual differences between face and object processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 416-424.
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006). Repetition and the brain neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 14-23.
Halit, H., de Haan, M., Schyns, P. G., & Johnson, M. H. (2006). Is high-spatial frequency information used in the early stages of face detection?. Brain Research, 1117, 154-161.
Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 223-233.
Henson, R. N. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of priming. Progress In Neurobiology, 70, 53-81.
Henson, R. N. A., & Rugg, M. D. (2003). Neural response suppression, haemodynamic repetition effects, and behavioural priming. Neuropsychologia, 41, 263-270.
Henson, R. N., Goshen-Gottstein, Y., Ganel, T., Otten, L. J., Quayle, A., & Rugg, M. D. (2003). Electrophysiological and haemodynamic correlates of face perception, recognition and priming. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 793-805.
Henson, R. N., Mattout, J., Singh, K. D., Barnes, G. R., Hillebrand, A., & Friston, K. (2007). Population-level inferences for distributed MEG source localisation under multiple constraints: Application to face-evoked fields. Neuroimage, 38, 422-438.
Itier, R. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2002). Inversion and contrast polarity reversal affect both encoding and recognition processes of unfamiliar faces: A repetition study using ERPs. Neuroimage, 15, 353-372.
Itier, R. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2004). N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal differences between object and face processing using ERPs. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 132-142.
Itier, R. J., Alain, C., Sedore, K., & McIntosh, A. R. (2007). Early face processing specificity: It's in the eyes!. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1815-1826.
Kanwisher, N., & Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: A cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 361, 2109-2128.
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302-4311.
Kendall, L. N., Raffaelli, Q., Kingstone, A., & Todd, R. M. (2016). Iconic faces are not real faces: Enhanced emotion detection and altered neural processing as faces become more iconic. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 19.
Kovács, G., Zimmer, M,, Volberg, G,, Lavric, I., & Rossion, B. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of visual adaptation and sensory competition. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1488- 1496.
Kovács, G., Zimmer, M., Harza, I., & Vidnyánszky, Z. (2007). Adaptation duration affects the spatial selectivity of facial aftereffects. Vision Research, 47, 3141-3149.
Kuefner, D., De Heering, A., Jacques, C., Palmero-Soler, E., & Rossion, B. (2010). Early visually evoked electrophysiological responses over the human brain (P1, N170) show stable patterns of face-sensitivity from 4 years to adulthood. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 67.
Leopold, D. A., O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 89-94.
Leopold, D. A., Rhodes, G., Müller, K. M., & Jeffery, L. (2005). The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272, 897-904.
Maurer, U., Rossion, B., & McCandliss, B. D. (2008). Category specificity in early perception: Face and word N170responses differ in both lateralization and habituation properties. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, 18.
Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109-114.
Mercure, E., Cohen Kadosh, K., & Johnson, M. (2011). The N170 shows differential repetition effects for faces, objects and orthographic stimuli. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 6.
Nakashima, T., Kaneko, K., Goto, Y., Abe, T., Mitsudo, T., Ogata, K., . . . Tobimatsu, S. (2008). Early ERP components differentially extract facial features: Evidence for spatial frequency-and-contrast detectors. Neuroscience Research, 62, 225-235.
Palumbo, R., Laeng, B., & Tommasi, L. (2013). Gender-specific aftereffects following adaptation to silhouettes of human bodies. Visual Cognition, 21, 1-12.
Park, T., Yang, Y., & Kim, J. (2018). Inversion Effects on Face Emoticon Processing: An ERP Study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 30, 113-139.
Rhodes, G. (1993) Configural coding, expertise, and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition. Brain and Cogntion, 22, 19-41.
Rhodes, G., Robbins, R., Jaquet, E., McKone, E., Jeffery, L., &Clifford, C. W. G. (2005). Adaptation and face perception:How aftereffects implicate norm-based coding of faces. In C. W. G. Clifford & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Fitting the Mind to the World: Adaptation and After-Effects in High-Level Vision (pp. 213-240). OxFord: Oxford University Press.
Rossion, B., Gauthier, I., Goffaux, V., Tarr, M. J., &Crommelinck, M. (2002). Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized facelike electrophysiological responses. Psychological Science, 13, 250-257.
Rossion, B., Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Despland, P., Bruyer, R., Linotte, S., & Crommelinck, M. (2000). The N170 occipitotemporal 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, 11, 69-72.
Rossion, B., Joyce, C. A., Cottrell, G. W., & Tarr, M. J. (2003). Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex. Neuroimage, 20, 1609-1624.
Sagiv, N., & Bentin, S. (2001). Structural encoding of human and schematic faces: Holistic and part-based processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 937-951.
Schendan, H. E., Ganis, G., & Kutas, M. (1998). Neurophysiological evidence for visual perceptual categorization of words and faces within 150 ms. Psychophysiology, 35, 240-251.
Tanaka, J. W., & Curran, T. (2001). A neural basis for expert object recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 43-47.
Tovée, M. J. (1998). Face processing: Getting by with a little help from its friends. Current Biology, 8, R317-R320.
Watanabe, S., Kakigi, R., & Puce, A. (2003). The spatiotemporal dynamics of the face inversion effect: A magneto-and electro-encephalographic study. Neuroscience, 116, 879-895.
Webster, M. A. (2011). Adaptation and visual coding. Journal of Vision, 11, 3.
Webster, M. A., & Maclin, O. H. (1999). Figural aftereffects in the perception of faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 647-653.
Webster, M. A., Kaping, D., Mizokami, Y., & Duhamel, P. (2004). Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature, 428, 557-561.
Wiggs, C. L., & Martin, A. (1998). Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, 227-233.