Comparing two versions of the Chimeric Face Test: A pilot investigation.

The Chimeric Face Test (CFT) is a widely used behavioral measure of degree of lateralization for emotion processing. The Pictures of Facial Affect (Ekman, 1976 [Pictures of facial affect. Consulting Psychologists Press.]) have often been used to create chimeras for this task but have widely been critiqued due to lack of ethnic diversity and small stimuli numbers. In this brief study participants (N = 45) completed two Chimeric Face Tests, one using the Pictures of Facial Affect and one using the NimStim facial stimuli (Tottenham et al., 2009 [The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 242-249]). The laterality scores were compared across measures. The results show the two measures are related; laterality quotients showed a strong correlation between the two tasks. Participants showed a left-visual field bias on both tasks, indicative of a right-hemisphere bias for the processing of emotions. The NimStim Chimeric Face Test however was found to give a more conservative estimate of degree of lateralization. The NimStim Chimeric Face Test is discussed as a valid measure for examining lateralization for emotion processing, The extent to which different versions of the Chimeric Face Test are comparable is discussed.

Development of upper visual field bias for faces in infants.

The spatial location of the face and body seen in daily life influences human perception and recognition. This contextual effect of spatial locations suggests that daily experience affects how humans visually process the face and body. However, it remains unclear whether this effect is caused by experience, or innate neural pathways. To address this issue, we examined the development of visual field asymmetry for face processing, in which faces in the upper visual field were processed preferentially compared to the lower visual field. We found that a developmental change occurred between 6 and 7 months. Older infants aged 7-8 months showed bias toward faces in the upper visual field, similar to adults, but younger infants of 5-6 months showed no such visual field bias. Furthermore, older infants preferentially memorized faces in the upper visual field, rather than in the lower visual field. These results suggest that visual field asymmetry is acquired through development, and might be caused by the learning of spatial location in daily experience.

Top-down control of the left visual field bias in cued visual spatial attention.

A left visual field (LVF) bias in perceptual judgments, response speed, and discrimination accuracy has been reported in humans. Cognitive factors, such as visual spatial attention, are known to modulate or even eliminate this bias. We investigated this problem by recording pupillometry together with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a cued visual spatial attention task. We observed that (i) the pupil was significantly more dilated following attend-right than attend-left cues, (ii) the task performance (e.g. reaction time [RT]) did not differ between attend-left and attend-right trials, and (iii) the difference in cue-related pupil dilation between attend-left and attend-right trials was inversely related to the corresponding difference in RT. Neuroscientically, correlating the difference in cue-related pupil dilation with the corresponding cue-related fMRI difference yielded activations primarily in the right hemisphere, including the right intraparietal sulcus and the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. These results suggest that (i) there is an asymmetry in visual spatial attention control, with the rightward attention control being more effortful than the leftward attention control, (ii) this asymmetry underlies the reduction or the elimination of the LVF bias, and (iii) the components of the attentional control networks in the right hemisphere are likely part of the neural substrate of the observed asymmetry in attentional control.

Left visual field bias during face perception aligns with individual differences in reading skills and is absent in dyslexia.

BACKGROUND: When looking at faces, we tend to attend more to the left visual field (corresponding to the right side of the person's face). This phenomenon is called the left visual field bias (LVF) and is presumed to reflect the brain's right-sided dominance for face processing. Whether alterations in hemispheric dominance are present in dyslexia, and are linked with individual differences in word reading development more generally, is still unclear, and no prior research has utilized gaze-based LVF bias to explore these topics. AIMS: The aim of the study was to examine whether the LVF bias differs in dyslexia and to examine the association with word-reading skills assessed dimensionally. SAMPLE: Forty-six 9-13 year-old children with dyslexia and community control children, matched on age and listening comprehension. METHODS: Participants were presented with a recorded face on a screen while their gaze patterns were collected with an eye tracker. Fixations to the left versus the right side of the face stimuli were compared. RESULTS: Results showed a clear LVF bias in community controls, while no such bias was seen in the dyslexic group. Moreover, the strength of the LVF bias was correlated with better word reading in the controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a link between weakened hemispheric dominance for face processing in dyslexia and in poor word reading, at least to the extent that the LVF bias actually mirrors underlying physiology. We discuss the implications of these novel findings, highlighting the need for future research to determine the specificity and developmental sources of LVF bias alterations.

Data-driven analysis of gaze patterns in face perception: Methodological and clinical contributions.

Gaze patterns during face perception have been shown to relate to psychiatric symptoms. Standard analysis of gaze behavior includes calculating fixations within arbitrarily predetermined areas of interest. In contrast to this approach, we present an objective, data-driven method for the analysis of gaze patterns and their relation to diagnostic test scores. This method was applied to data acquired in an adult sample (N = 111) of psychiatry outpatients while they freely looked at images of human faces. Dimensional symptom scores of autism, attention deficit, and depression were collected. A linear regression model based on Principal Component Analysis coefficients computed for each participant was used to model symptom scores. We found that specific components of gaze patterns predicted autistic traits as well as depression symptoms. Gaze patterns shifted away from the eyes with increasing autism traits, a well-known effect. Additionally, the model revealed a lateralization component, with a reduction of the left visual field bias increasing with both autistic traits and depression symptoms independently. Taken together, our model provides a data-driven alternative for gaze data analysis, which can be applied to dimensionally-, rather than categorically-defined clinical subgroups within a variety of contexts. Methodological and clinical contribution of this approach are discussed.

Reduced left visual field bias for faces in adolescents with social anxiety disorder.

Introduction: Individuals tend to explore the left side of a face first and for a longer time in comparison to the right side. This left visual field (LVF) bias is suggested to reflect right hemispheric dominance for face processing. Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with maladaptive interpretations of facial expressions, but it is not known whether this is linked to an atypical LVF bias. Previous studies have reported a reduced LVF bias in autism, a condition overlapping with SAD. This pre-registered study examined the LVF bias in adolescents with SAD. Methods: Eye-tracking was used to investigate the ratio of first fixations to the left on upright and inverted face stimuli in 26 adolescents (13-17 years) with SAD and 23 healthy controls primed to look either between the eyes or at the mouth. Results: The SAD group showed a smaller LVF bias and an atypical face inversion effect when primed to look at the eyes. Autistic traits predicted a smaller LVF bias, independently of social anxiety level. Conclusions: Results suggest that SAD is associated with impaired processing of faces at an early stage of visual scanning. The findings contribute to a better understanding of SAD and its overlap with autism.

Does right hemisphere superiority sufficiently explain the left visual field advantage in face recognition?

The tendency to perceive the identity of the left half of a centrally viewed face more strongly than that of the right half is associated with visual processing of faces in the right hemisphere (RH). Here we investigate conditions under which this well-known left visual field (LVF) half-face advantage fails to occur. Our findings challenge the sufficiency of its explanation as a function of RH specialization for face processing coupled with LVF-RH correspondence. In two experiments we show that the LVF half-face advantage occurs for normal faces and chimeric faces composed of different half-face identities. In a third experiment, we show that face inversion disrupts the LVF half-face advantage. In two additional experiments we show that half-faces viewed in isolation or paired with inverted half-faces fail to show the LVF advantage. Consistent with previous explanations of the LVF half-face advantage, our findings suggest that the LVF half-face advantage reflects RH superiority for processing faces and direct transfer of LVF face information to visual cortex in the RH. Critically, however, our findings also suggest the operation of a third factor, which involves the prioritization of face-processing resources to the LVF, but only when two upright face-halves compete for these resources. We therefore conclude that RH superiority alone does not suffice to explain the LVF advantage in face recognition. We also discuss the implications of our findings for specialized visual processing of faces by the right hemisphere, and we distinguish LVF advantages for faces viewed centrally and peripherally in divided field studies.

Gender Classification Based on Eye Movements: A Processing Effect During Passive Face Viewing.

Studies have revealed superior face recognition skills in females, partially due to their different eye movement strategies when encoding faces. In the current study, we utilized these slight but important differences and proposed a model that estimates the gender of the viewers and classifies them into two subgroups, males and females. An eye tracker recorded participant's eye movements while they viewed images of faces. Regions of interest (ROIs) were defined for each face. Results showed that the gender dissimilarity in eye movements was not due to differences in frequency of fixations in the ROI s per se. Instead, it was caused by dissimilarity in saccade paths between the ROIs. The difference enhanced when saccades were towards the eyes. Females showed significant increase in transitions from other ROI s to the eyes. Consequently, the extraction of temporal transient information of saccade paths through a transition probability matrix, similar to a first order Markov chain model, significantly improved the accuracy of the gender classification results.

Imagine a mouse and an elephant: Hemispheric asymmetries of imagination.

The present study aimed to explore the existence of an asymmetrical bias in the imagination of pairs of objects of unequal size. We assumed that such pairs are conceptualized with the smaller object being placed on the left, creating an ascending size order from left to right. Such a bias could derive from a cognitive strategy known from the mental number line. Sixty-four participants were instructed to imagine stimulus-pairs that were staggered from those showing very prominent intra-pair size differences (e.g., elephant vs. mouse) to very low size differences (e.g., orange vs. apple). The results showed that the tendency to imagine the bigger object on the right side increases with the size difference of the two stimuli. Such a visual field bias was also present in stimulus-pairs including numbers so that the participants imagined smaller and larger numbers on the left and the right side of the visual fields, respectively. Taken together, our findings could imply that the left-to-right orientation observed in our object imagining task may share the same cognitive mechanism as the mental number line.

Natural, but not artificial, facial movements elicit the left visual field bias in infant face scanning.

A left visual field (LVF) bias has been consistently reported in eye movement patterns when adults look at face stimuli, which reflects hemispheric lateralization of face processing and eye movements. However, the emergence of the LVF attentional bias in infancy is less clear. The present study investigated the emergence and development of the LVF attentional bias in infants from 3 to 9 months of age with moving face stimuli. We specifically examined the naturalness of facial movements in infants'LVF attentional bias by comparing eye movement patterns in naturally and artificially moving faces. Results showed that 3- to 5-month-olds exhibited the LVF attentional bias only in the lower half of naturally moving faces, but not in artificially moving faces. Six- to 9-month-olds showed the LVF attentional bias in both the lower and upper face halves only in naturally moving, but not in artificially moving faces. These results suggest that the LVF attentional bias for face processing may emerge around 3 months of age and is driven by natural facial movements. The LVF attentional bias reflects the role of natural face experience in real life situations that may drive the development of hemispheric lateralization of face processing in infancy.

Visual field bias in hearing and deaf adults during judgments of facial expression and identity.

The dominance of the right hemisphere during face perception is associated with more accurate judgments of faces presented in the left rather than the right visual field (RVF). Previous research suggests that the left visual field (LVF) bias typically observed during face perception tasks is reduced in deaf adults who use sign language, for whom facial expressions convey important linguistic information. The current study examined whether visual field biases were altered in deaf adults whenever they viewed expressive faces, or only when attention was explicitly directed to expression. Twelve hearing adults and 12 deaf signers were trained to recognize a set of novel faces posing various emotional expressions. They then judged the familiarity or emotion of faces presented in the left or RVF, or both visual fields simultaneously. The same familiar and unfamiliar faces posing neutral and happy expressions were presented in the two tasks. Both groups were most accurate when faces were presented in both visual fields. Across tasks, the hearing group demonstrated a bias toward the LVF. In contrast, the deaf group showed a bias toward the LVF during identity judgments that shifted marginally toward the RVF during emotion judgments. Two secondary conditions tested whether these effects generalized to angry faces and famous faces and similar effects were observed. These results suggest that attention to facial expression, not merely the presence of emotional expression, reduces a typical LVF bias for face processing in deaf signers.