  This article is written in response to a Progressions article by Kanwisher in
the Journal of Neuroscience, The Quest for the FFA and Where It Led (Kanwisher,
2017). I reflect on the extensive research program dedicated to the study of
how and why perceptual expertise explains the many ways that faces are special,
a research program which both predates and follows the Kanwisher (1997)
landmark article where the fusiform face area (FFA) is named. The expertise
accounts suggests that the FFA is an area recruited by expertise individuating
objects that are perceptually similar because they share a configuration of
parts. While Kanwisher (2017) discussed the expertise account only very briefly
and only to dismiss it, there is strong and replicable evidence that responses
in the FFA are highly sensitive to experience with non-face objects. I point
out that Kanwisher was well positioned to present these findings in their
historical context as she participated in the design of the first fMRI study on
car and bird expertise, as well as the first replication of this finding.
Perhaps most relevant to readers interested in the neural bases of face
processing, it is important to distinguish studies that describe the phenomenon
of face-selectivity from those that test an explanation for this phenomenon. In
the Progressions article, arguments for a face-dedicated processing module that
is not the result of our experience with faces are provided without attention
to a great deal of expertise research which is directly inconsistent with that
claim. The claim also lacks more direct support, as face-selective responses in
the visual system are not found in infants and children and face-selective
activity in FFA does not appear to be heritable.
