The Impact of Eye Gaze on The Priority of Configural and Featural Face Processing

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250103

Abstract

Abstract: Featural and configural information are the two main ways in which individuals process faces. Featural processing involves the recognition of local facial details, while configural processing involves the perception of spatial relationships between facial features. An increasing number of electrophysiological studies have shown differences in neural mechanisms, with the right hemisphere of the brain being more sensitive to configural faces than to featural faces. Configural and featural faces also elicit different ERP components, with the early ERP component being more sensitive to configural faces and the later ERP component being more sensitive to featural faces. Social information, such as facial expressions and race, can influence both types of processing, potentially due to differences in attention. However, it is unclear how featural and configural processing differ in terms of attention and how they are affected by facial social information. Gaze direction, as a key aspect of social attention, may play an important role in attracting attention during face processing. Further research is needed to explore the impact of eye gaze on different face processing mechanisms.
This study used the N2pc component to investigate the differences in attention between configural and featural processing, as well as the impact of gaze direction, in a visual search task. The N2pc is believed to indicate the shift of attention to a target during visual search, and is measured by comparing the brain activity on the side of the target versus the opposite side. The study employed a 2 (target face type: configural, featural) × 2 (eye gaze: direct, averted) within-subjects experimental design. Participants were asked to search for a specific target face in two blocks: one with configural faces and the other with featural faces, with gaze direction randomized within each block. For example, in the configural face target condition, participants had to identify one configural face among three featural faces in target-present trials. In target-absent trials, all four faces were featural faces. In both target-present and target-absent trials, all faces had averted or direct gaze.
The results of the study showed that the N2pc component was elicited by the configural face, but not by the featural faces during the 260-360 ms. There was no impact of eye direction on this response. In terms of the N170 component, the featural face elicited a larger amplitude and earlier latency than the configural face. This advantage in processing featural faces was more pronounced in the averted gaze condition than in the direct gaze condition. The findings suggest that different types of faces can evoke different levels of attention, with configural faces more likely to attract spatial selective attention. This could be due to the faster processing of holistic information compared to feature information during face perception. The N170 component for featural faces was larger and occurred earlier than for configural faces, suggesting that the advantage in processing featural faces is evident in the stage of encoding facial structure information. Interestingly, the influence of gaze was only observed in the N170 component but not in the N2pc component. This may indicate that gaze can affect the processing of facial configuration and features, but this effect may change over time. At the face encoding stage represented by the N170 component, averted gaze faces were processed with higher priority compared to direct gaze faces, making it easier to differentiate between configural and featural faces. Consistent with previous research on social cues, while gaze direction can impact the processing of different types of faces, it does not affect the attention evoked by the faces themselves. Therefore, whether in averted or direct gaze conditions, only configural faces were able to elicit the N2pc component. In short, the current study has affirmed that the effect of gaze on configural and featural processing is not due to attentional changes, but rather by affecting the encoding process.

Key words: face, N2pc, gaze direction, configural processing, featural processing

摘要： 构形与特征加工是个体加工面孔的两种主要方式,二者在神经机制上存在差异。但是,尚不清楚二者在引发注意上有何区别以及该过程是否会受到面孔其他信息的影响。因此,研究采用视觉搜索范式,以N2pc为指标,探讨面孔眼睛注视方向对面孔构形和特征加工引发注意的影响。结果发现,构形加工的面孔而非特征加工面孔诱发了N2pc,且不受眼睛注视方向的影响。在N170上,面孔特征加工比构形加工诱发更大的波幅,并且这种特征加工优势在斜视条件上比直视条件更大。这表明,面孔构形加工的优势表现在引发个体注意阶段,特征加工优势表现在面孔编码阶段并受面孔视向的影响。

关键词: 面孔 N2pc, 视向, 构形加工, 特征加工

Liu Chengdong, Chen Enguang, Fang Haiqing, Yang Haixin, Wang Hailing. The Impact of Eye Gaze on The Priority of Configural and Featural Face Processing[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2025, 48(1): 21-33.

刘成栋, 陈恩光, 方海情, 杨海鑫, 汪海玲. 面孔视向在面孔构形和特征加工优先性中的作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2025, 48(1): 21-33.

References

[1] 汪海玲, 傅世敏. (2011). 面孔倒置效应的研究与理论述评. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1588-1594.
[2] 汪亚珉, 黄雅梅. (2011). 面孔识别中的构形加工与特征加工. 心理科学进展, 19(8), 1126-1137.
[3] 姚树霞, 杨东, 齐森青, 雷燕, Ding, C. (2012). 视觉空间注意研究中的N2pc成分述评. 心理科学进展, 20(3), 365-375.
[4] Ayzenberg, V., & Behrmann, M. (2022). Does the brain' s ventral visual pathway compute object shape? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(12), 1119-1132.
[5] Bentin S., Allison T., Puce A., Perez E., & McCarthy G. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 551-565.
[6] Bombari D., Schmid P. C., Mast M. S., Birri S., Mast F. W., & Lobmaier J. S. (2013). Emotion recognition: The role of featural and configural face information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(12), 2426-2442.
[7] Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305-327.
[8] Carbon, C. C., & Leder, H. (2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception, 34(9), 1117-1134.
[9] Chen X. W., Xu B., Chen Y. Z., Zeng X. Q., Zhang Y., & Fu S. M. (2023). Saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of abrupt-onset and color singleton distractors: Evidence from event-related potential studies. Psychophysiology, 60(8), Article e14290.
[10] Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107-117.
[11] Doi H., Ueda K., & Shinohara K. (2009). Neural correlates of the stare-in-the-crowd effect. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1053-1060.
[12] Driver IV J., Davis G., Ricciardelli P., Kidd P., Maxwell E., & Baron-Cohen S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509-540.
[13] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[14] Fink G. R., Marshall J. C., Halligan P. W., Frith C. D., Frackowiak R. S. J., & Dolan R. J. (1997). Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: The effect of stimulus category. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 264(1381), 487-494.
[15] Folstein, J. R., & van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152-170.
[16] Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5(3), 490-495.
[17] Godard O., Leleu A., Rebaï M., & Fiori N. (2013). Sex differences in interhemispheric communication during face identity encoding: Evidence from ERPs. Neuroscience Research, 76(1-2), 58-66.
[18] Goffaux V., Peters J., Haubrechts J., Schiltz C., Jansma B., & Goebel R. (2011). From coarse to fine? Spatial and temporal dynamics of cortical face processing. Cerebral Cortex, 21(2), 467-476.
[19] Guo F. M., Wang C. M., Tao G. T., Ma H. L., Zhang J. X., & Wang Y. (2024). A longitudinal study on the impact of high-altitude hypoxia on perceptual processes. Psychophysiology, 61(6), Article e14548.
[20] Henderson J. M., Williams C. C., & Falk R. J. (2005). Eye movements are functional during face learning. Memory and Cognition, 33(1), 98-106.
[21] Hoffman, E. A., & Haxby, J. V. (2000). Distinct representations of eye gaze and identity in the distributed human neural system for face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3(1), 80-84.
[22] Ikeda K., Sugiura A., & Hasegawa T. (2013). Fearful faces grab attention in the absence of late affective cortical responses. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 60-69.
[23] Itier R. J., Alain C., Kovacevic N., & McIntosh A. R. (2007). Explicit versus implicit gaze processing assessed by ERPs. Brain Research, 1177, 79-89.
[24] Itier R. J., Latinus M., & Taylor M. J. (2006). Face, eye and object early processing: What is the face specificity? NeuroImage, 29(2), 667-676.
[25] Latinus, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2005). Holistic processing of faces: Learning effects with Mooney faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1316-1327.
[26] Le Grand R., Mondloch C. J., Maurer D., & Brent H. P. (2001). Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410(6849), Article 890.
[27] Lee J. K. W., Janssen S. M. J., & Estudillo A. J. (2022). A more featural based processing for the self-face: An eye-tracking study. Consciousness and Cognition, 105, Article 103400.
[28] Li J., Oksama L., Nummenmaa L., & Hyönä J. (2018). Angry faces are tracked more easily than neutral faces during multiple identity tracking. Cognition and Emotion, 32(3), 464-479.
[29] Lian Y. J., Zhang Q., Yang X. X., Fang H. Q., & Wang H. L. (2024). Rigid facial motion at study facilitates the holistic processing of own-race faces during the structural encoding stage. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 203, Article 112407.
[30] Madipakkam A. R., Rothkirch M., Guggenmos M., Heinz A., & Sterzer P. (2015). Gaze direction modulates the relation between neural responses to faces and visual awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(39), 13287-13299.
[31] Maurer D., O’Craven K. M., Le Grand R., Mondloch C. J., Springer M. V., Lewis T. L., & Grady C. L. (2007). Neural correlates of processing facial identity based on features versus their spacing. Neuropsychologia, 45(7), 1438-1451.
[32] McCrackin, S. D., & Itier, R. J. (2019). Perceived gaze direction differentially affects discrimination of facial emotion, attention, and gender-an ERP study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, Article 517.
[33] Mercure E., Dick F., Halit H., Kaufman J., & Johnson M. H. (2008). Differential lateralization for words and faces: Category or psychophysics? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 2070-2087.
[34] Pascalis O., Loevenbruck H., Quinn P. C., Kandel S., Tanaka J. W., & Lee K. (2014). On the links among face processing, language processing, and narrowing during development. Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 65-70.
[35] Peters J. C., Goebel R., & Goffaux V. (2018). From coarse to fine: Interactive feature processing precedes local feature analysis in human face perception. Biological Psychology, 138, 1-10.
[36] Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148.
[37] Pönkänen L. M., Alhoniemi A., Leppänen J. M., & Hietanen J. K. (2011). Does it make a difference if I have an eye contact with you or with your picture? An ERP study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(4), 486-494.
[38] Proverbio A. M., Brignone V., Matarazzo S., Del Zotto M., & Zani A. (2006). Gender differences in hemispheric asymmetry for face processing. BMC Neuroscience, 7, Article 44.
[39] Proverbio A. M., Riva F., Martin E., & Zani A. (2010). Face coding is bilateral in the female brain. PLoS ONE, 5(6), Article e11242.
[40] Puce A., Allison T., Bentin S., Gore J. C., & McCarthy G. (1998). Temporal cortex activation in humans viewing eye and mouth movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 18(6), 2188-2199.
[41] Qiu Z. G., Becker S. I., & Pegna A. J. (2022). Spatial attention shifting to emotional faces is contingent on awareness and task relevancy. Cortex, 151, 30-48.
[42] Rato M. L., Mares I., de Sousa D. A., Senju A., & Martins I. P. (2019). Direct gaze partially overcomes hemispatial neglect and captures spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2702.
[43] Renzi C., Schiavi S., Carbon C. C., Vecchi T., Silvanto J., & Cattaneo Z. (2013). Processing of featural and configural aspects of faces is lateralized in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: A TMS study. NeuroImage, 74, 45-51.
[44] Rhodes G., Locke V., Ewing L., & Evangelista E. (2009). Race coding and the other-race effect in face recognition. Perception, 38(2), 232-241.
[45] Rossion, B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 300-312.
[46] Schomaker J., Roos R., & Meeter M. (2014). Expecting the unexpected: The effects of deviance on novelty processing. Behavioral Neuroscience, 128(2), 146-160.
[47] Scott, L. S., & Nelson, C. A. (2006). Featural and configural face processing in adults and infants: A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation. Perception, 35(8), 1107-1128.
[48] Smith M. L., Cottrell G. W., Gosselin F., & Schyns P. G. (2005). Transmitting and decoding facial expressions. Psychological Science, 16(3), 184-189.
[49] Song J., Liu M., Yao S., Yan Y., Ding H. C., Yan T. Y., & Xu G. Z. (2017). Classification of emotional expressions is affected by inversion: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, Article 21.
[50] Stasch J., Mohr B., & Neuhaus A. H. (2018). Disentangling the interaction of sex differences and hemispheric specialization for face processing-evidence from ERPs. Biological Psychology, 136, 144-150.
[51] Tanaka J. W., Kiefer M., & Bukach C. M. (2004). A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition, 93(1), B1-B9.
[52] Vizioli L., Foreman K., Rousselet G. A., & Caldara R. (2010). Inverting faces elicits sensitivity to race on the N170 component: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Vision, 10(1), Article 15.
[53] Wang H. L., Chen E. G., Li J. J., Ji F. L., Lian Y. J., & Fu S. M. (2022). Configural but not featural face information is associated with automatic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 884823.
[54] Wang, H. L., & Fu, S. M. (2018). Spatial Attention modulates the temporal sequence of hemispheric asymmetry in configural and featural face processing. Neuropsychologia, 111, 269-275.
[55] Wang H. L., Guo S. C., & Fu S. M. (2016). Double dissociation of configural and featural face processing on P1 and P2 components as a function of spatial attention. Psychophysiology, 53(8), 1165-1173.
[56] Wang H. L., Lian Y. J., Wang A. Q., Chen E. G., & Liu C. D. (2023). Face motion form at learning influences the time course of face spatial frequency processing during test. Biological Psychology, 183, Article 108691.
[57] Wang H. L., Qiu R. Y., Li W. Y., Li S. X., & Fu S. M. (2020). Cultural differences in the time course of configural and featural processing for own-race faces. Neuroscience, 446, 157-170.
[58] Wang H. L., Sun P., Ip C., Zhao X., & Fu S. M. (2015). Configural and featural face processing are differently modulated by attentional resources at early stages: An event-related potential study with rapid serial visual presentation. Brain Research, 1602, 75-84.
[59] Wieser M. J., Hambach A., & Weymar M. (2018). Neurophysiological correlates of attentional bias for emotional faces in socially anxious individuals-Evidence from a visual search task and N2pc. Biological Psychology, 132, 192-201.
[60] Young S. G., Slepian M. L., Wilson J. P., & Hugenberg K. (2014). Averted eye-gaze disrupts configural face encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 94-99.
[61] Yuan J., Zhang Q., & Cui L. X. (2021). Disgust face captures more attention in individuals with high social anxiety when cognitive resources are abundant: Evidence from N2pc. Neuropsychologia, 151, Article 107731.
[62] Zachariou V., Nikas C. V., Safiullah Z. N., Gotts S. J., & Ungerleider L. G. (2017). Spatial mechanisms within the dorsal visual pathway contribute to the configural processing of faces. Cerebral Cortex, 27(8), 4124-4138.
[63] Zhang Y., Zhang H., & Fu S. M. (2024). Relative saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of color and face singleton distractors: Evidence from event-related potential studies. Cerebral Cortex, 34(4), Article bhae176.
[64] Zhou G. M., Cheng Z. J., Yue Z. Z., Tredoux C., He J. B., & Wang L. (2015). Own-race faces capture attention faster than other-race faces: Evidence from response time and the N2pc. PLoS ONE, 10(6), Article e0127709.