Abstract:Localizing objects is a fundamental function of vision, a prerequisite for most other high-level perceptual and motor goals. Localization could be object invariant: the perceived position of an object may not depend on its particular identity. This would support the commonly held assumption that localization emerges from a unified process or a single module in the brain (e.g., constant retinotopy maintained throughout the visual hierarchy, or a privileged area like FEF that signals perceived position). An alternative is that object representations do influence position assignment. To test this, we measured individual differences in the localization of upright and inverted faces. We employed a dual-task localization and recognition paradigm. On each trial, a grayscale face was briefly presented (either upright or inverted) enveloped within a Gaussian contrast aperture. The face was shown at one pseudo-randomly chosen angular location with fixed eccentricity. Upon its disappearance, observers first moved the cursor to indicate the center of the face, and then they reported its gender (female/male). Collapsed across subjects, at the group level, there was no obvious difference in localization performance for upright and inverted faces. However, the results revealed significant individual differences: each observer mislocalized the stimuli at different locations of the visual field, and these localization biases were stable, consistent with previous findings (Kosovicheva & Whitney, Curr Bio, 2017; Wang et al., Proc Roy Soc, 2020). More importantly, we found that observers showed different idiosyncratic localization biases for upright and inverted faces. The precision of the localization was similar for upright and inverted faces, suggesting that attention differences and lapsing were not likely responsible. Instead, stimulus-specific (for example, face-specific) position coding mechanisms likely exist. The results undermine the idea of a modular or single retinotopic pathway to localization, and instead suggest that object identity interacts with the assignment of perceived position.

Specificity Of Face Processing Without Awareness

The Process of Category-and-Specific-Identity Information Retrieval in Face Perception

What Makes a Face a Face:A Review of Studies on Face Specificity

The Face-Sensitive N170 and VPP:Differences in Category Recognition Using ERPS

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Invisible Social Grouping Facilitates the Recognition of Individual Faces.

Association of idiosyncratic eye-movement patterns with holistic processing of faces as measured by the composite face effect and the face inversion effect

The Part Task of the Part-Spacing Paradigm is Not a Pure Measurement of Part-Based Information of Faces.

The role of inversion and face masks on simultaneous and delayed face matching tasks

An Experimental Study on the Inversion Effect of Face-feature Information

The Face Inversion Effect in Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

A featural account for own-face processing? Looking for support from face inversion, composite face, and part-whole tasks

Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict Face Recognition Ability.

Binocular rivalry reveals differential face processing in congenital prosopagnosia

Visual adaptation and 7T fMRI reveal facial identity processing in the human brain under shallow interocular suppression

Processing of invisible social cues

Priming Global and Local Processing of Composite Faces: Revisiting the Processing-Bias Effect on Face Perception

Accessing without remembering: memory consolidation of information at the focus of awareness is optional

High Familiar Faces Have Both Part Recognition and Holistic Processing Advantages

Invisible fearful face induced by crowding can capture spatial attention

Individual Differences in the Spatial Localization of Upright Versus Inverted Faces