This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I get the impression that this section misrepresents the reception of and response to Thierry's paper on interstimulus variance. Rossion et al.'s 2008 response was quite specific in detailing criticisms of the paper and conclusions, as evidenced clearly in the bulk of their abstract-

"Here we claim that this physical variance factor is ill-defined by Thierry et al. and cannot account for previous observations of a smaller N170 amplitude to nonface objects than faces without latency increase and component "smearing". Most importantly, this factor was controlled in previous studies that reported robust N170 effects. We demonstrate that the absence of N170 effect in the study of Thierry et al. is due to methodological flaws in the reported experiments, most notably measuring the N170 at the wrong electrode sites. Moreover, the authors attributed a modulation of N170 amplitude in their study to a differential interstimulus physical variance while it probably reflects a biased comparison of different quality sets of individual images. Here, by taking Thierry et al.'s study as an exemplar case of what should not be done in ERP research of visual categorization processes, we provide clarifications on a number of methodological and theoretical issues about the N170 and its largest amplitude to faces. More generally, we discuss the potential role of differential visual homogeneity of object categories as well as low-level visual properties versus high-level visual processes in accounting for early face-preferential responses and the question of the speed at which visual stimuli are categorized as faces. This survey of the literature points to the N170 as a critical event in the time course of face processes in the human brain."

This echoes and expands on Bentin et al.'s 2007 paper, "Controlling interstimulus perceptual variance does not abolish N170 face sensitivity". I notice that this section has had some back and forth edits and reverts. Perhaps a discussion here would benefit the article.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Rossion and his group are experts in the field and their paper is clear and thorough in their critique of the Thierry study. Note, also, that no additional evidence in support of Thierry's position has been offered since 2007, whereas additional support for the link between the N170 and face processing continues to grow. I think either this whole section on the "controversy" should be removed, or else the strength of Rossion's critique needs to be emphasized -- which the most recent edits have worked against. I will reinstate the original text once again. If someone wishes for it to be deleted, please make clear here what the argument for that is. Kfederme (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Attempts to remove the criticism of this study are not going to be successful until the proposed edits have been discussed on the talk page. The only people who care about this issue almost definitely work as researchers, so I find it hard to understand why the recent edits have not involved a preceding discussion about the sources. It is quite unbecoming.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply