Using Fixation-Related Potentials to Investigate Dynamic Face Processing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Visual Cognition ISSN: 1350-6285 (Print) 1464-0716 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pvis20 Peripheral preview abolishes N170 face-sensitivity at fixation: Using fixation-related potentials to investigate dynamic face processing Peter de Lissa, Genevieve McArthur, Stefan Hawelka, Romina Palermo, Yatin Mahajan, Federica Degno & Florian Hutzler To cite this article: Peter de Lissa, Genevieve McArthur, Stefan Hawelka, Romina Palermo, Yatin Mahajan, Federica Degno & Florian Hutzler (2019): Peripheral preview abolishes N170 face- sensitivity at fixation: Using fixation-related potentials to investigate dynamic face processing, Visual Cognition To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2019.1676855 Published online: 16 Oct 2019. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pvis20 VISUAL COGNITION https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2019.1676855 Peripheral preview abolishes N170 face-sensitivity at fixation: Using fixation- related potentials to investigate dynamic face processing Peter de Lissaa,b, Genevieve McArthurb, Stefan Hawelka c, Romina Palermo d, Yatin Mahajane, Federica Degno f and Florian Hutzler c aiBMLab, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; bDepartment of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; cCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Salzburg University, Salzburg, Austria; dSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; eThe MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Australia; fSchool of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The N170 ERP peak has been found to be consistently larger in response to the presentation of faces Received 22 February 2018 than to other objects, yet it is not clear whether this face-sensitive N170 is also elicited during Accepted 1 October 2019 fixations made subsequent to the initial presentation. To investigate this question, the current KEYWORDS study utilised Event and Fixation-Related Potentials in two experiments, time-locking brain ’ Faces; N170; ERP; FRP; potentials to the presentation of faces and objects (watches) images in participants peripheral fixation vision, and to their first fixations on the images. Experiment 1 found that a face-sensitive N170 was elicited by the onset of images but not by a subsequent fixation on the images, and that face inversion did not modulate N170 beyond presentation. Experiment 2 found that disrupting the structure of the peripheral preview (phase-scrambling) led to a face-sensitive N170 at fixation onsets on the intact-images. Interestingly, N170 amplitudes for both faces and objects were significantly enhanced after the peripheral preview was phase-scrambled, suggesting that the N170 in part reflects a category-detection process that is elicited once when an image structure is viewed. These results indicate that neural processing during fixations will be significantly modulated when they are immediately preceded by peripheral previews, and is not specific to faces. Most of our visual perception occurs through natural Kauffmann et al., 2019) or houses (Mares, Smith, fixations,whereweareoftenabletocontrolthe Johnson, & Senju, 2016). timing and the targets of our visual processing. Our Neuroimaging studies have consistently found that peripheral field of view allows us to perceive and faces can be differentiated from other objects very process these targets, and subsequently direct our early in the visual processing stream. In event- gaze towards them to process them with greater related potential (ERP) studies, this can be seen with acuity through our foveal vision (Strasburger, Ren- a negative peak, the N170, at around 170 milliseconds tschler, & Juttner, 2011 for review). One of the most (ms) over occipitotemporal areas that is (1) larger to salient targets for our gaze is the human face, faces than other objects (e.g., watches, cars, or which tends to attract our attention more than houses; Bentin, Allison, Puce, Perez, & McCarthy, other visual stimuli (Langton, Law, Burton, & 1996; Eimer, 1998; Rossion & Jacques, 2007; although Schweinberger, 2008; Lavie, Ro, & Russell, 2003; cf Thierry, Martin, Downing, & Pegna 2007); (2) later Palermo & Rhodes, 2007;Yarbus,1967,forreview). and larger to inverted faces than upright faces (Itier, The preferential processing of faces in our periphery Latinus, & Taylor, 2006; Itier & Taylor, 2004; Linken- has been demonstrated by the significant speed kaer-Hansen et al., 1998; Rossion et al., 2000); and (3) advantage we have when making saccades towards elicited by faces presented in either the centre of a images of faces than to other familiar objects such visual field or the periphery (when spatially scaled to as vehicles (Crouzet, Kirchner, & Thorpe, 2010; account for eccentricity effects) (Kovács, Knakker, Guyader, Chauvin, Boucart, & Peyrin, 2017; Hermann, Kovács, & Vidnyanszky, 2017; Rousselet, CONTACT Peter de Lissa [email protected] iBMLab, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Faucigny 2, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 P. DE LISSA ET AL. Husk, Bennett, & Sekuler, 2005). Of note is the insensi- faces, an N170 elicited at presentation may not be tivity of the N170 to face identity in typical ERP para- activated by a subsequent fixation made on the digms, which has led to the suggestion that this image, as the processes would already be com- early peak reflects a structural encoding stage of pro- pleted by the time of fixation. The consequences cessing of facial features and configuration that are of a peripheral preview for processing at a sub- used in later stages of processing such as recognition sequent fixation may therefore have many impli- (Bentin et al., 1996; Bentin & Deouell, 2000; Eimer, cations beyond face processing, where visual 2000). While this interpretation follows from the objects may be perceived before a fixation is model of structural encoding for faces initially outlined made to them, such as in reading or in visual by Bruce and Young (1986), the N170 is also con- search paradigms. sidered to reflect a face detection process (George, Although the traditional ERP approach is limited in Jemel, Fiori, Chaby, & Renault, 2005; Sagiv & Bentin, its ability to measure neural activity beyond the initial 2001), which is not explicitly part of Bruce and presentation, an approach that is well-suited to inves- Young’s model (Rossion & Jacques, 2011 for review). tigate the influence of peripheral previews on sub- The relationship between the N170 and behavioural sequent fixation-related face processing is the perception of a face was highlighted by the results Fixation-Related Potentials (FRP) paradigm. By co- of George et al. (2005), who found that Mooney registering EEG and eye-position recordings, tra- faces that had been behaviourally detected as faces ditional ERPs can be recorded during the initial periph- elicited larger N170 responses than those that had not. eral presentation of stimuli, and FRPs may be formed While the patterns of N170 responses to faces by time-locking the EEG to the onset of initial and objects have been the focus of much study in fixations made to the stimuli. So far, the FRP technique the past decades, traditional ERP paradigms do has offered a flexible approach to investigate how the not lend themselves to the investigation of the pro- brain processes both complex scenes and stimuli, and cessing of these stimuli in more complex contexts it applied to object identification (Rama & Baccino, mirroring our everyday experience, where visual 2010), free exploration (Devillez, Guyader, & Guérin- objects are often initially perceived peripherally Dugué, 2015; Graupner, Velichkovsky, Pannasch, & and subsequently fixated upon. To date, our under- Marx, 2007; Kamienkowski, Ison, Quiroga, & Sigman, standing of the neural processing of faces and 2012; Ossandón, Helo, Montefusco-Siegmund, & Mal- objects has mostly involved the analysis of neural donado, 2010), foveal/parafoveal wording reading responses to the onset of the image, presented (Baccino & Manunta, 2005; Degno et al., 2019; for a short period of time (e.g., a photo presented Dimigen, Kliegl, & Sommer, 2012; Hutzler et al., 2007; for 200 ms). For practical and experimental Hutzler et al., 2013; Kornrumpf, Niefind, Sommer, & reasons, traditional N170 ERP paradigms do not Dimigen, 2016; López-Peréz, Dampuré, Hernández- readily allow for the analysis of brain activity Cabrera, & Barber, 2016; Niefind & Dimigen, 2016), beyond the initial presentation of an image, and and attentional shifts (Huber-Huber, Ditye, Fernández, so the fate of face-processing beyond this presen- & Ansorge, 2016). The paradigm has also been tation-related processing is as yet unknown. extended to investigate the processing of faces Studies have shown that the N170 is elicited by within complex scenes (Kaunitz et al., 2014), emotion- faces presented in the periphery (Kovács et al., ally-salient scenes involving faces and other objects 2017; Rousselet et al., 2005), and that people tend (Guérin-Dugué et al., 2018; Simola, Fevre, Torniainen, to be significantly faster to make saccades to faces & Baccino, 2015; Soto et al., 2018), and the effect than to other objects when presented outside of face and gaze detection has on saccadic orienting to central vision (Crouzet et al., 2010;