Publications
2024
36. Wardle, S. G., Rispoli, B., Roopchansingh, V., & Baker, C. I. (2024).Brief encounters with real objects modulate medial parietal but not occipitotemporal cortex. bioRxiv preprint. [link]
35. Taubert, J., Wardle, S. G., Patterson, A., & Baker, C. (2024) Beyond faces: The contribution of the amygdala to visual processing in the macaque brain. Cerebral Cortex, 34, bhae24. [link]
2023
34. Wardle, S. G., Ewing, L., Malcolm, G. L., Paranjape, S., & Baker, C. I. (2023). Children perceive illusory faces in objects as male more often than female. Cognition, 235, 105398. [link]
[OSF: data & materials]
33. *Corriveau, A., *Kidder, A., Teichmann, L., Wardle, S. G. & Baker, C. (2023) Sustained neural representations of personally familiar people and places during cued recall. Cortex, 158, 71-82. [link]
[OSF: data & materials]
2022
32. Taubert, J., Wardle, S. G., Tardiff, C.T., Patterson, A., Yu, David. & Baker, C. (2022). Clutter substantially reduces selectivity for peripheral faces in the macaque brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 42, 6739-6750. [link]
31. Taubert, J., Wardle, S. G., Tardiff, C.T., Koele, E.A., Kumar, S. Messinger, A. & Ungerleider, L. (2022). The cortical and subcortical correlates of face detection in the macaque brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, nsac031. [link]
30. *Wardle, S. G., *Paranjape, S., Taubert, J. & Baker, C. I. (2022) Illusory faces are more likely to be perceived as male than female. PNAS, 119(5), e2117413119. [link]
Data: [OSF: data & materials]
Commentary: [TICS Spotlight]
Media: [Scientific American] [The New York Times] [Forbes] [The Times (UK)] [ABC (Australia)] [Science News]
2021
29. Alais, D., Xu, Y., *Wardle, S. G. & *Taubert, J. (2021). A shared mechanism for facial expression in human faces and face pareidolia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 288: 20210966. [link]
28. Keys, R., Taubert, J. & Wardle, S. G. (2021). A visual search advantage for illusory faces in objects. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 1-12. [link]
[OSF: data & materials]
27. Contini, E., *Goddard, E. & *Wardle, S. G. (2021). Reaction times predict dynamic brain representations measured with MEG for only some object categorization tasks. Neuropsychologia, 151, 107687. [link]
[OSF: data & materials]
2020
26. Wardle, S. G., Taubert, J., Teichmann, L., & Baker, C. I. (2020). Rapid and dynamic processing of face pareidolia in the human brain. Nature Communications, 11, 4518. [link]
[OSF: data & materials]
25. Taubert, J., Wardle, S. G., & Ungerleider L. G. (2020). What does a “face cell” want? Progress in Neurobiology, 195, 101880. [link]
24. Wardle, S. G. & Baker, C. I. (2020). Recent advances in understanding object recognition in the human brain: deep neural networks, temporal dynamics, and context. F1000Research, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev): 590. [link]
2019
23. Carrigan, A., Wardle, S. G., & Rich, A. (2019) Do target detection and target localization always go together? Extracting information from briefly presented displays. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1-15. [link]
2018
22. Taubert, J., Flessert, M., Wardle, S.G., Basile, B.M., Murphy, A.P., Murray, E.A. & Ungerleider, L.G. (2018) Amygdala lesions eliminate viewing preferences for faces in rhesus monkeys. PNAS, 115 (31), 8043-8048. [link]
21. Carrigan, A., Wardle, S. G., & Rich, A. (2018). Finding cancer in mammograms: if you know it’s there, do you know where? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3:10, 1-14. [link]
2017
20. Taubert, J., Wardle, S.G., Flessert, M., Leopold, D.A., & Ungerleider, L.G. (2017) Face pareidolia in the rhesus monkey. Current Biology, 27(16), 2505-2509. [link]
19. Grootswagers, T., Ritchie, J. B., Wardle, S. G., Heathcote, A., & Carlson, T. A. (2017). Asymmetric compression of representational space for object animacy categorization under degraded viewing conditions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(12), 1995-2010. [link]
18. Contini, E., *Wardle, S.G., & *Carlson, T.A. (2017). Decoding the time-course of object recognition in the human brain: From visual features to categorical decisions. Neuropsychologia, 105, 165-176. [link]
17. Wardle, S.G., Ritchie, J.B., *Seymour, K., & *Carlson, T.A. (2017). Edge-related activity is not necessary to explain orientation decoding in human visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 37(5), 1187-1196. [link]
16. Grootswagers, T., Wardle, S.G., & Carlson, T.A. (2017) Decoding dynamic brain patterns from evoked responses: A tutorial on multivariate pattern analysis applied to time-series neuroimaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(4), 677-697. [link]
2016
15. Wardle, S.G., Kriegeskorte, N., Grootswagers, T., Khaligh-Razavi, S.-M., & Carlson, T.A. (2016) Perceptual similarity of visual patterns predicts dynamic neural activation patterns measured with MEG. NeuroImage, 132, 59-70. [link]
14. Wardle, S.G. & Gillam, B.J. (2016) Gradients of relative disparity underlie the perceived slant of stereoscopic surfaces. Journal of Vision, 16(5):16, 1-13. [link]
2014
11. Wardle, S.G. & Ritchie, J.B. (2014) Can object category-selectivity in the ventral visual pathway be explained by sensitivity to low-level image properties? The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(45), 14817- 14819. [link]
10. Wardle, S.G., Palmisano, S. & Gillam, B.J. (2014) Monocular and binocular edges enhance the perception of stereoscopic slant. Vision Research, 100, 113-123. [link]
9. Gillam, B.J., Wardle, S.G., & Vecellio, E. (2014) Orientation contrast and entropy contrast in the genesis of subjective contours along thin lines. Perception, 43(1), 7-22. [link]
2013
8. Wardle, S.G. & Gillam, B.J. (2013) Color constrains depth in da Vinci stereopsis for camouflage but not occlusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 39, 1525-1540. [link]
7. Wardle, S.G. & Gillam, B.J. (2013) Phantom surfaces in da Vinci stereopsis. Journal of Vision, 13(2):16, 1-14. [link]
6. Wardle, S.G. & Alais, D. (2013) Evidence for speed sensitivity to motion in depth from binocular cues. Journal of Vision, 13(1):17, 1-16. [link]
5. Gillam, B.J. & Wardle, S.G. (2013) A mid-level explanation for the venetian blind effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 4:908. [link]
pre 2013
4. Wardle, S.G., Bex, P.J., Cass, J., & Alais, D. (2012) Stereoacuity in the periphery is limited by internal noise. Journal of Vision, 12(6):12, 1-12. [link]
2. Mitchell, C. J., Wardle, S.G., Lovibond, P.F., Weidemann, G., & Chang, B.P.I. (2010) Do reaction times in the Perruchet effect reflect variations in the strength of an associative link? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 36, 567-572. [link]