4.5 Article

How the Thatcher illusion reveals evolutionary differences in the face processing of primates

Journal

ANIMAL COGNITION
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 691-700

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-013-0604-4

Keywords

Visual illusion; Face recognition; Chimpanzee; Rhesus monkey; Evolution; Matching-to-sample

Funding

  1. NIH/NCRR [RR-00165]
  2. [R01-MH068791]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P51RR000165] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH068791] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Face recognition in humans is a complex cognitive skill that requires sensitivity to unique configurations of eyes, mouth, and other facial features. The Thatcher illusion has been used to demonstrate the importance of orientation when processing configural information within faces. Transforming an upright face so that the eyes and mouth are inverted renders the face grotesque; however, when this Thatcherized face is inverted, the effect disappears. Due to the use of primate models in social cognition research, it is important to determine the extent to which specialized cognitive functions like face processing occur across species. To date, the Thatcher illusion has been explored in only a few species with mixed results. Here, we used computerized tasks to examine whether nonhuman primates perceive the Thatcher illusion. Chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys were required to discriminate between Thatcherized and unaltered faces presented upright and inverted. Our results confirm that chimpanzees perceived the Thatcher illusion, but rhesus monkeys did not, suggesting species differences in the importance of configural information in face processing. Three further experiments were conducted to understand why our results differed from previously published accounts of the Thatcher illusion in rhesus monkeys.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available