Domain Specificity in Face Perception Nancy Kanwisher
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://neurosci.nature.com commentary Domain specificity in face perception Nancy Kanwisher Is face perception carried out by modules specialized only for processing faces? Or are faces perceived by domain-general mechanisms that can also operate on non-face stimuli? Considerable evidence supports the domain-specific view. A primary goal in scientific research is to object recognition. Perhaps the strongest the ‘basic level’ (for example, chair, coat, ‘carve nature at its joints.’ This is emphat- evidence that distinct mechanisms may be pen), without determining the specific ically true in cognitive science, where involved in the recognition of faces comes exemplar of the category (my chair, Joe’s philosophers and psychologists have from the neuropsychological literature. In coat), for faces we usually proceed beyond sought for centuries to discover the fun- the syndrome of prosopagnosia8, patients the general category ‘face’ to determine damental components of the human are unable to recognize previously famil- the identity of the particular individual. mind. In his influential book Modularity iar faces, despite a largely preserved ability Second, we probably look at and discrim- of Mind, Fodor1 contrasts two competing to recognize objects. Even more striking inate between faces more than any other .com views on the functional organization of are patients with the opposite syndrome. class of visual stimuli (with the possible the mind. One view holds that the mind Patient CK is severely impaired at reading exception of words, discussed later). We is divided according to the content of the and object recognition, yet completely are all face experts. Is it possible that the information processed. Proponents of this normal at face recognition9. Importantly, mechanisms we use to process faces are osci.nature approach seek distinct mechanisms for CK’s face-recognition abilities are much not specialized for face processing per se, functions like voice recognition, spatial more disrupted than those of normal sub- but rather for making fine-grained dis- navigation and perception of visual jects when faces are inverted or fractured criminations between visually similar motion. In the alternative view, the mind into pieces, consistent with the idea that exemplars of any category? Or might the http://neur • is organized instead around the kinds of face-specific mechanisms are holistic and putative face-specific mechanisms actual- processes it carries out. Accordingly, inversion-sensitive. Thus the neuropsy- ly be specialized for making any discrim- mechanisms might exist for functions like chology literature contains evidence for a inations for which we have gained judgment, volition and categorization. double dissociation between face and substantial expertise? That is, might a The current discussion of the nature of object recognition. domain-general account of face percep- face perception is a microcosm of this long- Functional brain imaging investigations tion be possible? standing debate2. Is face perception carried of the normal human brain have comple- A seminal study of the behavioral con- out by domain-specific mechanisms, that mented the evidence from neuropsychol- sequences of visual expertise23 found that is, by modules specialized for processing ogy. Many studies show that a region in the expert dog judges show inversion costs 2000 Nature America Inc. faces in particular? Or are faces handled by fusiform gyrus is not only activated when when recognizing dogs, much like the © domain-general mechanisms that can subjects view faces10,11, but activated at least inversion costs all subjects show in rec- operate on nonface visual stimuli as well? twice as strongly for faces as for a wide ognizing faces. On the basis of these variety of nonface stimuli, including letter results, the authors inferred that it is Evidence for domain-specificity strings12, assorted objects13,14, animals with- unlikely that a neural substrate dedicat- Many behavioral studies suggest that out heads15 (but see also ref. 16) and the ed to face encoding exists. Instead, they domain-specific mechanisms are involved backs of human heads17. Similarly, selec- hypothesized that the mechanisms in processing faces. For example, face tive responses to faces are reported using involved in face recognition are also recognition is more disrupted by inversion scalp ERPs18 and MEG19, as well as direct engaged when subjects make discrimina- (turning the stimulus upside down) than is electrical recordings from the surface of the tions between structurally similar exem- object recognition3. Accuracy at discrim- human brain20–22. As this brief overview of plars of a category for which they have inating individual face parts (such as the the literature shows, considerable evidence gained substantial visual expertise. The nose) is higher when the entire face is pre- supports the domain-specific view: face authors of this study23 and another24 pro- sented than when the parts are presented perception seems to involve different cog- pose that face recognition and expert in isolation, whereas the same ‘holistic’ nitive and neural mechanisms from those exemplar discrimination both involve advantage is not found for parts of houses involved in the recognition of nonface extracting ‘second-order relational fea- or inverted faces4. These and other find- objects. Note, however, that the question tures,’ that is, computing the distinctive ings5–7 suggest that face recognition of the domain specificity of face-process- features of the presently seen exemplar involves special mechanisms that are more ing mechanisms is independent from the compared to the average of the category. inversion-sensitive and more holisitic (that question of the innateness of such mecha- Note however, that these important is, less part-based) than those involved in nisms, which is not the focus of the present results23 are consistent either with a uni- discussion. tary mechanism for the processing of Nancy Kanwisher is at the Department of Brain both faces and dogs in dog judges, or with and Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute Evidence for domain-generality two distinct mechanisms (one for faces of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Faces differ from other objects in several and one for dogs) that function in similar 02139, USA. important respects. Whereas it is often ways, at least with respect to inversion. e-mail: [email protected] sufficient to identify common objects at Although it is difficult to choose between nature neuroscience • volume 3 no 8 • august 2000 759 © 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://neurosci.nature.com commentary these two hypotheses based on behavioral however that when the fusiform face area Concerning the role of visual expertise, data alone, brain-based evidence can pro- was defined using the standard criteria alphanumeric characters are the only visu- vide clues. adopted in my lab, face areas could be al stimuli for which visual expertise is on a Indeed, prosopagnosia is often accom- found in the right hemisphere in only 5 par with expertise for faces (at least for aca- panied by deficits in discriminating of the 19 subjects in this study; of these, demics!). Yet the response of face-selective between similar exemplars of other non- the magnitudes of the expertise and cate- regions in the fusiform gyrus is extremely face categories25–27, consistent with the gorization-level effects are quite small, and low during viewing of letter strings12. One hypothesis that a single common mecha- the response to faces remain at least twice might also argue that another category of nism may underlie the discrimination of as strong as that to the expert category. stimuli for which we do expert discrimi- faces and of different exemplars of non- Further studies will be necessary to resolve nation is places or scenes, yet the FFA face categories. On the other hand, this this apparent dependence of effect size on responds only very weakly to photographs finding is also consistent with the possi- the precise criteria used to localize the of indoor and outdoor scenes33. bility that face recognition and recogni- FFA. In any event, these findings suggest Thus considerable evidence shows that tion of other expert categories go on in that both within-category discrimination the FFA does not consistently produce a distinct but nearby cortical regions that and visual expertise may account for part strong response during either discrimina- are frequently damaged together. After all, of the apparent face selectivity of regions tion between similar exemplars of a non- the chance that a stroke or head trauma in the fusiform gyrus. face category or during viewing of to visual cortex will obliterate all of the nonface stimuli for which the subject has hypothesized face-processing region of Problems for domain-generality gained visual expertise. Instead, numer- .com cortex without affecting nearby cortical How far can domain-general accounts go? ous findings support the domain-specif- areas is similar to the chance that an aster- Can all the behavioral and neural evidence ic view: the presence of faces per se seems oid hitting New England would obliterate for the ‘specialness’ of faces be accounted to be an important determinant of the all of the state of Rhode Island without for in terms of the fine-grained nature of FFA response. osci.nature affecting Massachusetts or Connecticut. face discrimination and the expertise we Although it is not clear how the bird However,