CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 215Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsFace recognition and analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes

Open access
Rousselet, Guillaume A., Macé, Marc J.-M., Fabre-Thorpe, Michèle·2003·Journal of Vision
DOI 10.1167/3.6.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Object categorization can be extremely fast. But among all objects, human faces might hold a special status that could depend on a specialized module. Visual processing could thus be faster for faces than for any other kind of object. Moreover, because face processing might rely on facial configuration, it could be more disrupted by stimulus inversion. Here we report two experiments that compared the rapid categorization of human faces and animals or animal faces in the context of upright and inverted natural scenes. In Experiment 1, the natural scenes contained human faces and animals in a full range of scales from close-up to far views. In Experiment 2, targets were restricted to close-ups of human faces and animal faces. Both experiments revealed the remarkable object processing efficiency of our visual system and further showed (1) virtually no advantage for faces over animals; (2) very little performance impairment with inversion; and (3) greater sensitivity of faces to inversion. These results are interpreted within the framework of a unique system for object processing in the ventral pathway. In this system, evidence would accumulate very quickly and efficiently to categorize visual objects, without involving a face module or a mental rotation mechanism. It is further suggested that rapid object categorization in natural scenes might not rely on high-level features but rather on features of intermediate complexity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/3.6.5

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–215 of 215

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rousselet, G. A., Macé, M. J.-M., & Fabre-Thorpe, M.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Rousselet, Guillaume A.
  • Macé, Marc J.-M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Vision
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2003-07-31
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
5
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1167/3.6.5
OpenAlex
W2170599782
Cited by
215
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
face perception, object classification, natural images, animal faces, ventral stream, rapid visual processing, mental rotation
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Cognition, Face, Female, Form Perception, Generalization, Stimulus, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Orientation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review