How well do computer-generated faces tap face expertise?

The use of computer-generated (CG) stimuli in face processing research is proliferating due to the ease with which faces can be generated, standardised and manipulated. However there has been surprisingly little research into whether CG faces are processed in the same way as photographs of real faces. The present study assessed how well CG faces tap face identity expertise by investigating whether two indicators of face expertise are reduced for CG faces when compared to face photographs. These indicators were accuracy for identification of own-race faces and the other-race effect (ORE)-the well-established finding that own-race faces are recognised more accurately than other-race faces. In Experiment 1 Caucasian and Asian participants completed a recognition memory task for own- and other-race real and CG faces. Overall accuracy for own-race faces was dramatically reduced for CG compared to real faces and the ORE was significantly and substantially attenuated for CG faces. Experiment 2 investigated perceptual discrimination for own- and other-race real and CG faces with Caucasian and Asian participants. Here again, accuracy for own-race faces was significantly reduced for CG compared to real faces. However the ORE was not affected by format. Together these results signal that CG faces of the type tested here do not fully tap face expertise. Technological advancement may, in the future, produce CG faces that are equivalent to real photographs. Until then caution is advised when interpreting results obtained using CG faces

Experiment 2: discrimination accuracy for own-race faces in the two format conditions collapsed across race of participant for A. target present trials and B. target absent trials.

<p>Error bars show ± 1 <i>SEM</i>. *** = <i>p</i> < .001.</p

An example trial screen from Experiment 2 showing an Asian CG_R target present trial.

<p>Participants were required to identify the target depicted at the top of the screen in the array below. The correct response in this example is 9.</p

Experiment 1: Mean (SD) self-reported contact with own-race, other-race and CG faces.

<p>Experiment 1: Mean (SD) self-reported contact with own-race, other-race and CG faces.</p

Example Caucasian and Asian stimuli in the three formats used in Experiment 1: Real, CG_R, CG_A.

<p>A slight view change was included between study and test (i.e., study faces = front view, test faces = 5° left or right). Note the same identities are depicted in the Real and CG_R conditions.</p

Experiment 1: recognition accuracy for own-race faces in the three face format conditions collapsed across race of participant.

<p>Error bars show ± 1 <i>SEM</i>. *** = <i>p</i> < .001.</p