Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.761932
Title: Robust eye coding mechanisms in humans during face detection
Author: Yi, Fei
ISNI:       0000 0004 7654 2877
Awarding Body: University of Glasgow
Current Institution: University of Glasgow
Date of Award: 2018
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
We can detect faces more rapidly and efficiently compared to non-face object categories (Bell et al., 2008; Crouzet, 2011), even when only partial information is visible (Tang et al., 2014). Face inversion impairs our ability to recognise faces. The key to understand this effect is to determine what special face features are processed and how coding of these features is affected by face inversion. Previous studies from our lab showed coding of the contralateral eye in an upright face detection task, which was maximal around the N170 recorded at posterior-lateral electrodes (Ince et al., 2016b; Rousselet et al., 2014). In chapter 2, we used the Bubble technique to determine whether brain responses also reflect the processing of eyes in inverted faces and how it does so in a simple face detection task. The results suggest that in upright and inverted faces alike the N170 reflects coding of the contralateral eye, but face inversion quantitatively weakens the early processing of the contralateral eye, specifically in the transition between the P1 and the N170 and delays this local feature coding. Group and individual results support this claim. First, regardless of face orientation, the N170 coded the eyes contralateral to the posterior-lateral electrodes, which was the case in all participants. Second, face inversion delayed coding of contralateral eye information. Third, time course analysis of contralateral eye coding revealed weaker contralateral eye coding for inverted compared to upright faces in the transition between the P1 and the N170. Fourth, single-trial EEG responses were driven by the corresponding single-trial visibility of the left eye. The N170 amplitude was larger and latency shorter as the left eye visibility increased in upright and upside-down faces for the majority of participants. However, for images of faces, eye position and face orientation were confounded, i.e., the upper visual field usually contains eyes in upright faces; in upside-down faces lower visual field contains eyes. Thus, the impaired processing of the contralateral eye by inversion might be simply attributed to that face inversion removes the eyes away from upper visual filed. In chapter 3, we manipulated three vertical locations of images in which eyes are presented in upper, centre and lower visual field relative to fixation cross (the centre of the screen) so that in upright and inverted faces the eyes can shift from the upper to the lower visual field. We used the similar technique as in chapter 2 during a face detection task. First, we found 2 that regardless of face orientation and position, the modulations of ERPs recorded at the posterior-lateral electrodes were associated with the contralateral eye. This suggests that coding of the contralateral eye underlying the N170. Second, face inversion delayed processing of the contralateral eye when the eyes of faces were presented in the same position, Above, Below or at the Centre of the screen. Also, in the early N170, most of our participants showed weakened contralateral eye sensitivity by inversion of faces, of which the eyes appeared in the same position. The results suggest that face inversion related changes in processing of the contralateral eye cannot be simply considered as the results of differences of eye position. The scan-paths traced by human eye movements are similar to the low-level computation saliency maps produced by contrast based computer vision algorithms (Itti et al., 1998). This evidence leads us to a question of whether the coding function to encode the eyes is due to the significance in the eye regions. In chapter 4, we aim to answer the question. We introduced two altered version of original faces: normalised and reversed contrast faces in a face detection task - removing eye saliency (Simoncelli and Olshausen, 2001) and reversing face contrast polarity (Gilad et al., 2009) in a simple face detection task. In each face condition, we observed ERPs, that recorded at contralateral posterior lateral electrodes, were sensitive to eye regions. Both contrast manipulations delayed and reduced eye sensitivity during the rising part of the N170, roughly 120 – 160 ms post-stimulus onset. Also, there were no such differences between two contrast-manipulated faces. These results were observed in the majority of participants. They suggest that the processing of contralateral eye is due partially to low-level factors and may reflect feature processing in the early N170.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.761932  DOI: Not available
Keywords: BF Psychology
Share: