Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69 (3), 2010, 161–167

J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion

Sw issJ. Eff69ect
Psychol. (3)Emerges Under
© 2010 by Critical
Verlag Configural
Hans Huber, Discrepancy
Hogrefe AG, Bern

Original Communication

Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under

Critical Configural Discrepancy
Jisien Yang1,2 and Adrian Schwaninger1,3
1
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 2Department of Psychology, National
Chung-Cheng University, Taiwan, 3School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences
Northwestern, Switzerland

Abstract. Configural processing has been considered the major contributor to the face inversion effect (FIE) in face recognition. However,
most researchers have only obtained the FIE with one specific ratio of configural alteration. It remains unclear whether the ratio of
configural alteration itself can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. We aimed to clarify this issue by manipulating the configural information
parametrically using six different ratios, ranging from 4% to 24%. Participants were asked to judge whether a pair of faces were entirely
identical or different. The paired faces that were to be compared were presented either simultaneously (Experiment 1) or sequentially
(Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed that the FIE was observed only when the ratio of configural alteration was in the intermediate
range. These results indicate that even though the FIE has been frequently adopted as an index to examine the underlying mechanism of
face processing, the emergence of the FIE is not robust with any configural alteration but dependent on the ratio of configural alteration.

Keywords: face inversion effect, configural information, quantitative difference, qualitative difference, face processing

As social animals, human beings are surrounded in their daily
lives by innumerable faces and are able to recognize faces
extremely quickly, even without paying specific attention to
them (Reddy, Wilken, & Koch, 2004; Reinitz, Morrissey, &
Demb, 1994). Face recognition is probably the most sophis-
ticated ability that human beings exhibit, especially consid-
ering the fact that all faces are composed of relatively few
constituent elements in an identical configuration. However,
despite the extreme human capability for face processing,
accumulated research has found that face recognition is dis-
proportionately impaired by inversion when compared to the
recognition of other objects. The impairment of inverted face
recognition is referred to as the face inversion effect (FIE),
which implies that upright and inverted faces are processed
differently. The FIE serves as important evidence to support
different arguments in face research.
Generally, configural information in faces is divided into
two different kinds of information: first-order and second-
order relational properties (Diamond & Carey, 1986;
Rhodes, 1988). First-order properties refer to the overall
spatial configuration of facial features, for example, the
eyes are above the nose, which in turn is above the mouth,
etc. Second-order properties refer to the specific and quan-
titative relations among the facial features, such as the dis-
tance between the eyes, the distance between the eyes and
the nose, etc. Although the first-order properties allow hu-
mans to judge whether or not a particular spatial configu-
ration of arbitrary elements resembles a face, it is the sec-
ond-order properties that allow humans to tell faces apart,
given that all faces share the same first-order properties. A
considerable body of research supports the idea that the FIE
arises mainly from an impaired extraction of configural in-
formation in inverted faces (Diamond & Carey, 1986;
Freire, Lee, & Symons, 2000; Schwaninger & Mast, 2005;
Searcy & Bartlett, 1996; Valentine, 1988; Yin, 1969).
Empirically, the FIE can easily be replicated in face re-
search and has been widely adopted as an index to examine
many important issues in face recognition research. For ex-
ample, it has been found that inversion costs are not equiva-
lent when different facial information is processed, for exam-
ple, configural versus component information (Freire et al.,
2000; Goffaux & Rossion, 2007; Murray, Yong, & Rhodes,
2000; Searcy & Bartlett, 1996; Sergent, 1984); when faces of
different races are to be recognized (Rhodes, Tan, Brake, &
Taylor, 1989); when objects versus faces are to be distin-
guished (Cooper & Brooks, 2004; Farah, Wilson, Drain, &
Tanaka, 1998; Tanaka & Farah, 1993; Yin, 1969); or when
participants of different ages are to identify faces (Carey &
Diamond, 1977; Chung & Thomson, 1995; Itier & Taylor,
2004a, 2004b; Mondloch, Grand, & Maurer, 2002).
In others words, many researchers have based their con-
clusions on the presence or absence of the FIE. However,
almost all previous research has obtained the FIE with only
one specific ratio of configural alteration. Therefore, it re-
mains unclear whether the ratio of configural alteration itself
can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. The present research
aims to clarify whether the ratio of configural alteration itself
can mediate the occurrence of the FIE. In the experiment,

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000018 Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
162 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy

Figure 1. Examples of the different ratios of configural alteration in one female Caucasian and one female Asian face.

facial configural information was altered parametrically us- Procedure

ing six different ratios, ranging from 4% to 24%, at intervals
of 4%. We examined whether the FIE can be obtained with
any ratio or whether it is limited to specific ratios.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Twenty Caucasian undergraduate psychology students (12
male, mean age 25.05 years) at the University of Zurich
participated in the experiment in order to fulfill a course
requirement.
Materials
Sixteen faces balanced by gender and race (Caucasian vs.
Asian) were randomly selected from a face database devel-
oped by the Visual Cognition Research Group (VICOREG)
at the University of Zurich. For each face, the distance be-
tween the eyes and the distance between the lowest part of
the nose and the uppermost part of the upper lip were mea-
sured. The configuration of the face was then altered by mov-
ing the left and right eyes and eyebrows farther apart (i.e., the
left eye and eyebrow leftwards and the right eye and eyebrow
rightwards) and by moving the mouth downward. We manip-
ulated the magnitude of alteration using the following ratios:
4%, 8%, 12%, 16%, 20% and 24%. Each of the faces was
positioned inside an identical elliptical shape. Figure 1 shows
examples of the different ratios of configural alteration in one
female Asian and one female Caucasian face.
The experiment was based on a four-factor design with ori-
entation (upright vs. inverted), identity (same vs. different),
race (Caucasian vs. Asian), and configural alteration ratios
(4%, 8%, 12%, 16%, 20%, and 24%) as variable factors.
On each trial, a pair of faces of the same person was pre-
sented on a 17-inch LCD monitor without a time constraint.
The paired faces were always presented with the same ori-
entation, that is, both upright or both inverted. Participants’
heads were not fixed and the viewing distance was about
50 cm. The elliptical shape was about 14 cm wide and
16 cm high on the monitor and subtended a visual angle of
about 15.6 ° by 17.7 °. One of the pair of faces was ran-
domly assigned to one of four positions (top right, bottom
right, top left, and bottom left), while the other was placed
in the diagonally opposite position, as displayed in Figures
2 and 3. In different-configural-alteration trials, an original
face was presented with one of the configurally altered ver-
sions of it. In same-configural-alteration trials, the pair of
faces were identical (i.e., original faces both altered by the
same ratio). Thus, the configural information in the depic-
tions of an original face were altered by, for example, 12%
in both cases. The purpose of using configurally altered
faces (both configurally altered to the same extent) instead
of the original faces (both original faces) in the same-con-
figural-alteration trials was twofold. First, it eliminated any
disproportionate learning effect for the original faces as
compared to the configurally altered faces. For example, if
the original faces had been used in all the same-configur-
al-alteration conditions, they would have been viewed 18
times1 more often than any configurally altered face. Sec-
ond, it provides a rationale for converting the accuracy data
into d’ scores for different alteration ratios for further anal-

1 For example, in the trials with faces with configural alterations of 4%, two original faces will be presented in the same-configural-alteration
trial, while one original face and one configurally altered face will be presented in the different-configural-alteration trial. As a result, there
are three original faces and only one configurally altered face. The same situation also occurs in the configurally altered trials at 8%, 12%,
16%, 20%, and 24%. In the end, the original face will have been presented 18 times, whereas each face with a different extent of configural
alteration will have been presented only once.

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy 163

Figure 2. (a) Same-configural-altera-

tion trial (the configural information
of both faces was altered by 20%); (b)
Different-configural-alteration trial
(the upper-right face was the original
face, with a configural alteration of
0%, and the lower-left face had a con-
figural alteration of 20%).

ysis. In the different-configural-alteration condition, one

face is the original (0% configural alteration) and the other
is a configurally altered face that was altered by one of the
six ratios. Figure 2 illustrates the same- and different con-
figural-alteration trials with 24% configural alteration.
Twelve practice trials balanced for orientation, identity, ra-
tio, and race were provided to each participant prior to the
main experiment. The images used in the practice trials
were not used again in the experimental trials. There were
384 trials (2 orientations × 2 identities × 6 ratios × 2 races
× 8 examples) presented randomly for each participant in
the experimental session. Participants were instructed to
judge, without time constraint, whether the paired faces Figure 3. Mean d’ score as a function of orientation and
presented simultaneously were entirely identical or differ- configural alteration ratio.
ent. After participants pressed one of the predesignated
keys, an image appeared instructing participants to press
any key to start the next trial. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed main effects of
orientation, F(1, 19) = 20.90, MSE = 11.34, p < .001, and
ratio, F(3.292, 62.63) = 128.128, MSE = 156.51, p < .001. The
Results face inversion effect (FIE) was replicated. Overall perfor-
mance in recognizing upright faces was better than for invert-
The percentage of correct responses in different-configur- ed faces. For the main effect of ratio, posteriori comparisons
al-alteration trials (response was “different” when the con- revealed that all pairwise comparisons of different ratios were
figuration was different) was treated as the hit rate. The significant (Bonferroni, p values < .001), except for the com-
percentage of incorrect responses in same-configural-alter- parisons of 12% with 16% (Bonferroni, p = .12), 16% with
ation trials (response was “different” when the configura- 20% (Bonferroni, p = .11), and 20% with 24% (Bonferroni,
tion was identical) was treated as the false alarm rate. To p = .19). The ANOVA also revealed a significant two-way
take the participant’s response bias into account, the data interaction between race and ratio, F(5, 95) = 2.40, MSE =
were then converted to d’ scores using the following equa- 1.71, p < .042. The simple main effect analysis revealed that
tion: d’ = z (hits) – z (false alarms). performance with Asian and Caucasian faces was compara-
ble with configural alterations of 4%, 8%, 12%, and 16% (p
values > .152), whereas performance in recognizing Asian
d’ Score faces was better than for Caucasian faces with configural
alterations of 20% and 24% (p values < .047). No other main
Figure 3 displays the means and standard errors of the d’
effects or interaction effects were found.
scores as a function of orientation and ratio. The data were
subjected to a three-factor ANOVA with orientation, race,
and ratio as within-subject factors. Bonferroni-adjusted Face Inversion Effect (FIE)
posteriori pairwise comparisons were conducted when the
ANOVA revealed significant differences between condi- In order to examine whether the FIE varies with the ratio
tions. of configural alteration, separate t-tests were conducted on

2 In all analyses in this study, when Mauchly’s (1940) test of sphericity showed a significant deviance from equicorrection for a repeated
factor or for a combination of factors including at least one repeat factor, Greenhouse and Geisser’s (1959) epsilon was used to adjust the
degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance.

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
164 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy
the performance of upright versus inverted conditions with
different ratios. As can be seen from Figure 3, the FIE was
observed only with configural alterations of 16% and 20%
(p values < .01). The FIE did not emerge with configural
alterations of 4%, 8%, 12%, or 24% (p values > .051).
Discussion
The results show that configural processing systematically
improved with increasing ratio of configural alteration, and
for both upright and inverted faces. The face inversion ef-
fect (FIE) only emerged with intermediate ratios of config-
ural alteration, but not with the extremes of either subtle or
considerable configural alteration. In other words, there is
a critical configural discrepancy for the emergence of the
inversion effect in face processing. These results suggest
that the ratio of configural alteration is an important factor
for mediating the FIE. Accordingly, the FIE is not robust
with any configural alteration, but dependent on the ratio
of configural alteration.
Experiment 2
Method
In Experiment 2, the paired faces were presented sequen-
tially in order to encourage participants to process the faces
holistically. Also, this paradigm reduced the amount of
comparison of faces with respect to local features.
Participants
Twenty Caucasian participants (9 male, mean age 24.5)
were recruited from the University of Zurich. Participants
received either a monetary reward or participated in order
to fulfill a course requirement.
Materials
The face stimuli and the configural alterations were iden-
tical to those used in Experiment 1.
Procedure
The experimental design was identical to that in Experi-
ment 1. However, the paired faces that were to be compared
were presented sequentially. On each trial, a fixation cross
was presented in the center of the screen for 500 ms, then
a mask covered the whole stimulus area for 500 ms, and
then the second face was presented in the center of the
screen for 500 ms. After the second face disappeared, the
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
response instructions were presented on the screen instruct-
ing participants to press the predesignated key correspond-
ing to “same” or “different.” There was no time limit. After
participants had responded, the response instructions dis-
appeared and participants had to press any key to initiate
the next trial. Of the 384 trials, half were same-configural-
alteration and the other half different-configural-alteration
trials. For different-configural-alteration trials, the se-
quence of presentation (original face vs. configurally al-
tered face) was balanced. Thus, on half of the trials, the
original faces were presented first and on the other half the
configurally altered faces were presented first.
Results
d’ Score
The method of analysis used in Experiment 2 was identical
to that used in Experiment 1. The data were converted to
d’ scores and subjected to a three-factor ANOVA with ori-
entation, race, and ratio as within-subject factors. Bonfer-
roni-adjusted posteriori pairwise comparisons were con-
ducted when the ANOVA revealed significant differences
between conditions. Figure 4 shows the mean d’ score and
standard errors as a function of orientation and configural
alteration ratio in Experiment 2.
Figure 4. Mean d’ score as a function of orientation and
configural alteration ratio.
A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed main effects of
orientation, F(1, 19) = 11.66, MSE = 15.76, p < .001, and
ratio, F(5, 95) = 29.08, MSE = 31.08, p < .001. Here, too,
the face inversion effect (FIE) was replicated. Overall per-
formance in recognizing upright faces was better than for
inverted faces. For the main effect of ratio, posteriori com-
parisons revealed that performance with configural altera-
tions of 16%, 20%, and 24% was better than for those of
4%, 8%, and 12%, and performance with configural alter-
ations of 24% was better than for those of 16% (p values <
.037). No other main effects or interaction effects were
found.
 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy
Face Inversion Effect (FIE)
The FIE was apparent only with configural alterations of
12%, 16% and 20% (p values < .05). No FIE emerged with
configural alterations of 4%, 8%, or 24% (p values > .095).
Discussion
Although overall performance declined when the paired
faces were presented sequentially, the pattern revealed in
Experiment 1 was replicated in Experiment 2. Performance
improved with an increasing ratio of configural alteration.
This trend was evident in both upright and inverted faces.
In addition, similar to the results in Experiment 1, the in-
version effect emerges only in the intermediate range of
configural alteration, but not in the substantial or subtle
configural alterations.
General Discussion
In face recognition research, FIE serves as an important
index which has frequently been used to examine various
issues regarding face processing. Many arguments are
based on the presence or absence of the FIE. However,
in previous research, the FIE was often only obtained
with one specific ratio of configural alteration. The ratio
of configural alteration was rarely treated as a factor and
manipulated systematically to examine its potential inter-
action with the FIE. Therefore, it remained unclear
whether the ratio of configural alteration can mediate the
FIE.
In the present research, we altered the ratio of config-
ural alteration parametrically, using six different ratios,
and examined whether the FIE could be obtained with any
ratio or whether it was limited to specific ratios. Both ex-
periments revealed that the FIE emerged only with a crit-
ical discrepancy of face configural information. In addi-
tion, performance systematically improved with an in-
crease in ratio of configural alteration in both upright and
inverted faces. These results suggest that the ratio of con-
figural alteration plays an important role in mediating the
occurrence of the FIE. The FIE is not robust with any con-
figural alteration but dependent on the ratio of configural
alteration. These results imply that the arguments based
on the FIE should be interpreted cautiously because the
FIE may have been contaminated by the ratio of config-
ural alteration in previous experiments. This idea is in
agreement with Ellis (1975) and Rhodes, Hayward, and
Winkler (2006) who cast doubts on the widespread inter-
pretation of FIE as diagnostic of configural coding.
The FIE only emerged with a critical configural dis-
crepancy, namely, with an intermediate ratio of configural
alteration of around 12% to 20%. The FIE did not emerge
with subtle configural alterations, which might reflect the
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
165
fact that subtle configural alterations make discrimination
difficult in both upright and inverted faces. The FIE also
failed to emerge with substantial configural alterations,
which might reflect the fact that configural alterations can
reach the perceptual criteria for detecting a configural dis-
crepancy in both upright and inverted faces. However,
with intermediate ratios of configural alteration, the con-
figural alteration can reach the perceptual criteria for de-
tecting a configural discrepancy in upright faces more eas-
ily than in inverted faces. As a result, the FIE emerges
under the inequivalent sensitivity of configural processing
in different orientations. The varying FIE with different
ratios of configural alteration also rules out the possibility
that participants match the faces by local distance. Schwa-
ninger, Ryf, and Hofer (2003) found that the FIE disap-
pears when participants are required to compare the dis-
tance between facial features in face recognition experi-
ments. Moreover, Farah, Drain, and Tanaka (1995) also
found that the FIE disappeared when participants were
asked to decompose a holistic dot pattern into several
parts based on color.
The present results seem to contradict arguments claim-
ing that configural information in inverted faces is inac-
cessible to people (Diamond & Carey, 1986; Sergent,
1984; Yin, 1969). It shows that configural information in
inverted faces is still extractable. Moreover, configural
processing of inverted faces also improves with increasing
amounts of configural alteration. It seems that the sensi-
tivity of configural processing of inverted faces is im-
paired, but not the capability of extracting face configural
information. The difference in the configural processing
of upright versus inverted faces might not be an “all-or-
nothing” issue, but rather one concerning the extent of the
efficiency of configural processing. As proposed by Se-
kuler, Gaspar, God, and Bennett (2004), the primary dif-
ference between the processing of upright and inverted
faces might be quantitative rather than qualitative. Infor-
mation is extracted more efficiently in upright than in in-
verted faces. The advantage in processing upright faces
may simply be a by-product of relative expertise levels
because humans have more experience in recognizing up-
right faces than inverted faces.
Another issue worth addressing is the disappearance of
the race effect in both experiments. It has been proposed
that it is easier for people to distinguish between faces of
their own race than between those of another (see Meiss-
ner & Brigham, 2001, for a review). However, other re-
search indicates that the race effect in face recognition
might be the result of an impairment of extracting the
component information, holistic information, or configur-
al information in other-race faces (Hayward, Rhodes, &
Schwaninger, 2008; Michel, Caldara, & Rossion, 2006;
Rhodes et al., 2006). However, in those experiments, par-
ticipants were required to assess whether the faces dif-
fered in either holistic, component, or configural informa-
tion throughout the entire task. In other words, the com-
ponent or configural processing was not enhanced since
166 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy
participants were to pay attention to a variety of informa-
tion. However, in the present study, participants were en-
couraged to perform only configural processing through-
out the entire task. In addition, the configural information
was systematically altered to different extents. This might
also have enhanced participants’ configural processing
during the task. The results of Experiment 2 show that
participants’ performance in discriminating between
Asian and Caucasian faces was comparable under this par-
adigm. These results were not surprising because the race
effect has not always been replicated (Bothwell, Brigham,
& Malpass, 1989; Tanaka, Kiefer, & Bukach, 2004). How-
ever, Experiment 1 produced an unexpected result, name-
ly, that Caucasian participants performed better in recog-
nizing Asian than Caucasian faces with configural altera-
tions of 20% and 24%. Although the opposite race effect
seems surprising, these results might be explained by ra-
cial differences in facial characteristics. A recent anthro-
pometric analysis reported by Kunjur, Sabesan, and Ilan-
kovan (2006) found that Chinese men and women have
wider intercanthal distances than Indian and Caucasian
men and women. As explained by the authors, the inter-
canthal distance refers to the most medial part of the
palpebral fissure, that is, the closest distance between the
two eyes. In other words, the separation of the eyes is
greater in Asian than in Caucasian faces. This racial dif-
ference in eye separation also occurs in the faces used in
the present research, the average eye separation being
greater in Asian faces (140.75 pixels, or about 4.10 cm on
a 17-inch monitor) than in Caucasian faces (135.06 pixels,
about 3.95 cm on a 17-inch monitor). Although ratio was
controlled, the greater eye separation in Asian faces
makes the actual movement of the eyes larger, especially
when the ratio was considerable. This might explain why
the configural discrepancy was easier to detect in Asian
faces when the ratio of configural alteration was 20% and
24%.
In sum, the finding that the FIE emerges only with a
critical configural discrepancy is important and enlighten-
ing for research associated with face recognition. In the
domain of face recognition, the inversion effect is widely
and frequently used as an index to examine the underlying
mechanism of face processing. The FIE is always regard-
ed as an important indicator to justify or disprove different
arguments. However, as revealed in the present research,
the emergence of the FIE does not only depend on the
stimuli, task, participant age, etc., but is also a conse-
quence of a specific ratio of configural alteration.
References
Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-
racial identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 15, 19–25.
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configura-
tional representation of faces. Science, 195, 312–315.
Chung, M. S., & Thomson, D. M. (1995). Development of face
recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 55–87.
Cooper, E. E., & Brooks, B. E. (2004). Qualitative differences in
the representation of spatial relations for different object class-
es. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 243–256.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not spe-
cial: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 115, 107–117.
Ellis, H. D. (1975). Recognizing faces. British Journal of Psy-
chology, 66, 409–426.
Farah, M. J., Drain, H. M., & Tanaka, J. W. (1995). What causes
the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psycholo-
gy: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628–634.
Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., & Tanaka, J. (1998).
What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Re-
view, 105, 482–498.
Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion
effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information:
Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159–170.
Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2007). Face inversion disproportion-
ately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal re-
lations between features. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 33, 995–1002.
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the anal-
ysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 32, 95–112.
Hayward, W. G., Rhodes, G., & Schwaninger, A. (2008). An own-
race advantage for components as well as configurations in
face recognition. Cognition, 106, 1017–1027.
Itier, R. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2004a). Face inversion and contrast-
reversal effects across development: In contrast to expertise
theory. Developmental Science, 7, 246–260.
Itier, R. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2004b). Face recognition memory and
configural processing: A developmental ERP study using up-
right, inverted, and contrast-reversed faces. Journal of Cogni-
tive Neuroscience, 16, 487–502.
Kunjur, J., Sabesan, T., & Ilankovan, V. (2006). Anthropometric
analysis of eyebrows and eyelids: An interracial study. British
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 44, 89–93.
Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal
n-variate distribution. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11,
204–210.
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of inves-
tigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-ana-
lytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.
Michel, C., Caldara, R., & Rossion, B. (2006). Same-race faces
are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Visual
Cognition, 14, 55–73.
Mondloch, C. J., Grand, R. L., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configura-
tion face processing develops more slowly than featural face
processing. Perception, 31, 553–566.
Murray, J. E., Yong, E., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Revisiting the per-
ception of upside-down faces. Psychological Science, 11,
492–496.
Reddy, L., Wilken, P., & Koch, C. (2004). Face-gender discrimi-
nation is possible in the near-absence of attention. Journal of
Vision, 4, 106–117.
Reinitz, M. T., Morrissey, J., & Demb, J. (1994). Role of attention
in face encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 161–168.
 J. Yang & A. Schwaninger: Face Inversion Effect Emerges Under Critical Configural Discrepancy 167

Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order ural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of
features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, Psychology, 75, 221–242.
43–68. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face
Rhodes, G., Hayward, W., & Winkler, C. (2006). Expert face cod- recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ing: Configural and component coding of own and other race ogy, 46A, 225–245.
faces. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 499–505. Tanaka, J. W., Kiefer, M., & Bukach, C. M. (2004). A holistic ac-
Rhodes, G., Tan, S., Brake, S., & Taylor, K. (1989). Expertise and count of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence
configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psy- from a cross-cultural study. Cognition, 93, B1–B9.
chology, 80, 313–331. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect
Schwaninger, A., & Mast, F. W. (2005). The face-inversion effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychol-
can be explained by the capacity limitations of an orientation ogy, 79, 471–491.
normalization mechanism. Japanese Psychological Research, Yin, R. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Exper-
47, 216–222. imental Psychology, 81, 141–145.
Schwaninger, A., Ryf, S., & Hofer, F. (2003). Configural infor-
mation is processed differently in perception and recognition
of faces. Vision Research, 43, 1501–1505.
Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of Jisien Yang
component and spatial-relational information in faces. Journal of
Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Department of Psychology
22, 904–915. University of Zurich
Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., God, J. M., & Bennett, P. (2004). CASRA / Thurgauerstrasse 39
Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face CH - 8050 Zurich
processing. Current Biology, 14, 391–396. Switzerland
Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and config- jisien.yang@casra.ch

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (3) © 2010 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern