A defense of the subordinate-level expertise account for the N170 component

A recent paper in this journal reports two event-related potential (ERP) experiments interpreted as supporting the domain specificity of the visual mechanisms implicated in processing faces (Cognition 83 (2002) 1). The authors argue that because a large neurophysiological response to faces (N170) is less influenced by the task than the response to objects, and because the response for human faces extends to ape faces (for which we are not expert), we should reject the hypothesis that the face-sensitivity reflected by the N170 can be accounted for by the subordinate-level expertise model of object recognition (Nature Neuroscience 3 (2000) 764). In this commentary, we question this conclusion based on some of our own ERP work on expert object recognition as well as the work of others.     

The development of interindividual sharing of knowledge and beliefs in 5- to 9-year-old children

The authors studied the evolution of interindividual intentionality in children and showed that the sharing of knowledge and beliefs requires more complex operations than those involved in usual false-belief tasks. The authors conducted 3 experiments on 380 children (aged 5 years, 0 months to 9 years, 6 months). They assessed the children's ability to attribute to a character an intended action that was compatible with the belief held by another character interacting with that character. The observed lag in performances is explained both in terms of information processing and at the Piagetian concrete operational level.     

Perceived self-efficacy and pain control: opioid and nonopioid mechanisms

In this experiment, we tested for opioid and nonopioid mechanisms of pain control through cognitive means and the relation of opioid involvement to perceived coping efficacy. Subjects were taught cognitive methods of pain control, were administered a placebo, or received no intervention. Their pain tolerance was then measured at periodic intervals after they were administered either a saline solution or naloxone, an opiate antagonist that blocks the effects of endogenous opiates. Training in cognitive control strengthened perceived self-efficacy both to withstand and to reduce pain; placebo medication enhanced perceived efficacy to withstand pain but not reductive efficacy; and neither form of perceived self-efficacy changed without any intervention. Regardless of condition, the stronger the perceived self-efficacy to withstand pain, the longer subjects endured mounting pain stimulation. The findings provide evidence that attenuation of the impact of pain stimulation through cognitive control is mediated by both opioid and nonopioid mechanisms. Cognitive copers administered naloxone were less able to tolerate pain stimulation than were their saline counterparts. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy to reduce pain, the greater was the opioid activation. Cognitive copers were also able to achieve some increase in pain tolerance even when opioid mechanisms were blocked by naloxone, which is in keeping with a nonopioid component in cognitive pain control. We found suggestive evidence that placebo medication may also activate some opioid involvement. Because placebos do not impart pain reduction skills, it was perceived self-efficacy to endure pain that predicted degree of opioid activation.     

Identification of peripheral visual images in a laterally restricted gaze field

When the peripheral visual field is restricted or distorted, as occurs with certain spectacle lenses, the identification of objects in the periphery requires a coordinated head and eye movement. Initial experiments on the identification of peripheral images under such restrictions show that the degradation in performance is defined by a consistent additional delay in the time required to identify the image correctly. An analysis of the motor movements shows that performance is solely determined by movements of the head; eye movements are sufficiently precise and fast so they do not limit performance. A quantitative model of the identification task was developed and model simulations confirmed the experimental findings that head movement variables, specifically response latency and movement duration, uniquely determine identification performance. Hence, improved performance under these conditions must come from modifications in head-movement control either through training or adaptive processes.     

Holistic processing of faces: perceptual and decisional components

Researchers have used several composite face paradigms to assess holistic processing of faces. In the selective attention paradigm, participants decide whether one face part (e.g., top) is the same as a previously seen face part. Their judgment is affected by whether the irrelevant part of the test face is the same as or different than the relevant part of the study face. This failure of selective attention implies holistic processing. However, the authors show that this task alone cannot distinguish between perceptual and decisional sources of holism. The distinction can be addressed by the complete identification paradigm, in which both face parts are judged to be same or different, combined with analyses based on general recognition theory (F. G. Ashby & J. T. Townsend, 1986). The authors used a different paradigm, sequential responses, to relate these 2 paradigms empirically and theoretically. Sequential responses produced the same results as did selective attention and complete identification. Moreover, disruptions of holistic processing by systematic misalignment of the faces corresponded with systematic and significant changes in the decisional components, but not in the perceptual components, that were extracted using general recognition theory measures. This finding suggests a significant decisional component of holistic face processing in the composite face task.     

When intuition fails to align with data: A reply to Rossion (2013)

Holistic processing, a hallmark of face perception, is often measured in the so-called composite paradigm, in which participants are asked to match part of a stimulus while ignoring another part. In prior work, we recommended against the use of one version of the composite task we call the partial design, on the basis of confounds with response biases. Rossion wrote a lengthy piece that reviews the work that he has published using this design, raising a large number of criticisms, both about an alternative measure of holistic processing that we have used and advocated (which we call the complete design) and about our work in general. In this reply, we have limited our discussion to those issues that would be relevant to a researcher looking to decide which version of this composite paradigm to use, as we doubt a comprehensive reply would be of significant interest outside a very small circle.