<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
According to a study by Boutsen <em>et al</em>. Thatcherization of objects (houses in this study) did not reveal the Thatcher effect, while faces did.  </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
The Thatcher-face illusion (Fig 1) is, in my opinion, not really an illusion. Instead, it is a phenomenon where in-congruent features are more apparent when observed in their normal everyday context and orientation. In Fig. 1, for example, ms Spears appears normal, but upside down in the left panel, while her face appears hugely distorted when the left panel is turned upside down. </p>

<p>Your question whether this also occurs in objects other than faces. According to a study by <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45783318/j.neuroimage.2006.03.02320160519-25710-rpychr.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&amp;Expires=1550251565&amp;Signature=7QYXUWO8yzMJX6oF04mQjaEMHE8%3D&amp;response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DComparing_neural_correlates_of_configura.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Boutsen <em>et al</em>. (2006)</a>, it doesn't. Boutsen <em>et al</em>. manipulated images of faces and houses. Houses did not show effects of thatcherization. The authors discuss the why behind this finding and mention that a number of factors may explain the lesser salience in objects, namely a higher variability in the number of manipulated house features and  their perceptual salience or relevance. Because of their more stable feature structure and configuration, inversion of house elements was thought to be less salient with houses than with houses. Unlike the parts of a building, facial features are highly relevant to an observer to determine identity or expression, thereby rendering configural manipulations of buildings less disruptive. </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Frwjj.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Frwjj.jpg" alt="Spears"></a><br>
<sup>Fig. 1. Thatcher illusion of Britney</sup> </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png" alt="house"></a><br>
<sup>Fig. 2. Thatcherized face and house. source: <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Boutsen <em>et al</em>., 2006)</a></sup></p>

<p><sub><strong>Reference</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45783318/j.neuroimage.2006.03.02320160519-25710-rpychr.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&amp;Expires=1550251565&amp;Signature=7QYXUWO8yzMJX6oF04mQjaEMHE8%3D&amp;response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DComparing_neural_correlates_of_configura.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Boutsen <em>et al</em>., <em>NeuroImage</em> (2006); <strong>32</strong>: 352 – 67</a></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-16T12:21:45.617Z
Thanks Alice! The link expired and gives access denied now. Looks like access is paid: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811906001935?via%3Dihub
Leo Gallucci
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-16T12:23:19.040Z
The house comparison is quite poor IMHO. Do you know if they mention the Fusiform face area ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_face_area
Leo Gallucci
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T19:14:30.487Z
2019-02-15T19:14:30.487Z
AliceD
<p>The so called Thatcher-Illusion has been documented not  only on humans <a href="http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/27/9872" rel="nofollow noreferrer">but also in some monkeys</a>.</p>

<p>However I can't find literature clearing out if this effect only applies to face-recognition.</p>

<p>What about familiar but non-face visual objects?</p>

<p>Perhaps in other cases the illusion has a different name?</p>

<p>It also seems related to the so called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_neural_network" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Picasso Problem</a>.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811906001935?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Boutsen et al. (2006)</a> seem to dig deeper but the paper has restricted access.</p>

<p>A proper answer should probably take into account the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_face_area" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fusiform face area</a></p>

<neuroscience><cognitive-neuroscience><vision><optical-illusion><recognition>
Is the Thatcher Face Illusion only limited to face recognition?
Leo Gallucci
# Is the Thatcher Face Illusion only limited to face recognition?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-15)

The so called Thatcher-Illusion has been documented not only on humans [but also in some monkeys](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/27/9872).

However I can't find literature clearing out if this effect only applies to face-recognition.

What about familiar but non-face visual objects?

Perhaps in other cases the illusion has a different name?

It also seems related to the so called [Picasso Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_neural_network).

[Boutsen et al. (2006)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811906001935?via%3Dihub) seem to dig deeper but the paper has restricted access.

A proper answer should probably take into account the [Fusiform face area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_face_area)

**Tags:** neuroscience, cognitive-neuroscience, vision, optical-illusion, recognition


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-02-15. Score: 1

**Short answer**  
According to a study by Boutsen *et al*. Thatcherization of objects (houses in this study) did not reveal the Thatcher effect, while faces did.

**Background**  
The Thatcher-face illusion (Fig 1) is, in my opinion, not really an illusion. Instead, it is a phenomenon where in-congruent features are more apparent when observed in their normal everyday context and orientation. In Fig. 1, for example, ms Spears appears normal, but upside down in the left panel, while her face appears hugely distorted when the left panel is turned upside down.

Your question whether this also occurs in objects other than faces. According to a study by [Boutsen *et al*. (2006)](https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45783318/j.neuroimage.2006.03.02320160519-25710-rpychr.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1550251565&Signature=7QYXUWO8yzMJX6oF04mQjaEMHE8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DComparing_neural_correlates_of_configura.pdf), it doesn't. Boutsen *et al*. manipulated images of faces and houses. Houses did not show effects of thatcherization. The authors discuss the why behind this finding and mention that a number of factors may explain the lesser salience in objects, namely a higher variability in the number of manipulated house features and their perceptual salience or relevance. Because of their more stable feature structure and configuration, inversion of house elements was thought to be less salient with houses than with houses. Unlike the parts of a building, facial features are highly relevant to an observer to determine identity or expression, thereby rendering configural manipulations of buildings less disruptive.

[![Spears](https://i.sstatic.net/Frwjj.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Frwjj.jpg)  
Fig. 1. Thatcher illusion of Britney

[![house](https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png)  
Fig. 2. Thatcherized face and house. source: [Boutsen *et al*., 2006)](https://i.sstatic.net/WQBJa.png)

**Reference**  
**-** [Boutsen *et al*., *NeuroImage* (2006); **32**: 352 – 67](https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45783318/j.neuroimage.2006.03.02320160519-25710-rpychr.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1550251565&Signature=7QYXUWO8yzMJX6oF04mQjaEMHE8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DComparing_neural_correlates_of_configura.pdf)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks Alice! The link expired and gives access denied now. Looks like access is paid: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811906001935?via%3Dihub  
> **username_0**: The house comparison is quite poor IMHO. Do you know if they mention the Fusiform face area ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_face_area  

---

