Developmental improvement and age-related decline in unfamiliar face matching

Age-related changes have been documented widely in studies of face recognition and eyewitness identification. However, it is not clear whether these changes arise from general developmental differences in memory or occur specifically during the perceptual processing of faces. We report two experiments to track such perceptual changes using a 1-in-10 (Experiment 1) and 1-in-1 (Experiment 2) matching task for unfamiliar faces. Both experiments showed improvements in face matching during childhood and adult-like accuracy levels by adolescence. In addition, face-matching performance declined in adults of the age of 65. These findings indicate that developmental improvements and aging-related differences in face processing arise from changes in the perceptual encoding of faces. A clear face inversion effect was also present in all age groups. This indicates that those age-related changes in face matching reflect a quantitative effect, whereby typical face processes are engaged but do not operate at the best-possible level. These data suggest that part of the problem of eyewitness identification in children and elderly persons might reflect impairments in the perceptual processing of unfamiliar faces

The role of attention in face processing

Selective attention is widely regarded as a crucial component of human perception. In the visual domain, attentional mechanisms have been implicated in stimulus encoding, implicit recognition, conscious perception and goal-directed behaviour. To date, however, the role of attention in face processing has been largely overlooked. This is remarkable given the social and biological importance of faces, and the wealth of psychological research that has focused on faces as stimuli. Moreover, if we are to better understand how the human brain processes faces, then this would also require an insight into the interaction between attention and face processing. The experiments in this thesis addressed the relation of attention and face processing directly by assessing the consequences of various attentional manipulations in response-competition and repetition priming tasks. The first line of enquiry examined observers’ ability to attend selectively to facial expression and identity, and whether attention is required for the integration of these types of information into a multi-dimensional face percept. Subsequent experiments examined capacity limits in face processing and attention biases to faces and nonface comparisons. The main findings indicated that face processing is capacity limited, such that only a single face can be processed at a time, and that faces are particularly efficient at retaining and engaging visual attention in comparison to nonface objects. However, while face processing limits appear to proceed independent of a general capacity, attention biases to faces may reflect processing stages that are shared with other stimuli. These findings are discussed in relation to existing research on faces and attention

Perceived ability and actual recognition accuracy for unfamiliar and famous faces

In forensic person recognition tasks, mistakes in the identification of unfamiliar faces occur frequently. This study explored whether these errors might arise because observers are poor at judging their ability to recognize unfamiliar faces, and also whether they might conflate the recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Across two experiments, we found that observers could predict their ability to recognize famous but not unfamiliar faces. Moreover, observers seemed to partially conflate these abilities by adjusting ability judgements for famous faces after a test of unfamiliar face recognition (Experiment 1) and vice versa (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that observers have limited insight into their ability to identify unfamiliar faces. These experiments also show that judgements of recognition abilities are malleable and can generalize across different face categories

Understanding face identification through within-person variability in appearance: Introduction to a virtual special issue

In the effort to determine the cognitive processes underlying the identification of faces, the dissimilarities between images of different people have long been studied. In contrast, the inherent variability between different images of the same face has either been treated as a nuisance variable that should be eliminated from psychological experiments or it has not been considered at all. Over the past decade, research efforts have increased substantially to demonstrate that this within-person variation is meaningful and can give insight into various processes of face identification, such as identity matching, face learning, and familiar face recognition. In this virtual special issue of the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, we explain the importance of within-person variability for face identification and bring together recent relevant articles published in the journal

Pupillary Response as an Age-specific Measure of Sexual Interest

In the visual processing of sexual content, pupil dilation is an indicator of arousal that has been linked to observers’ sexual orientation. This study investigated whether this measure can be extended to determine age-specific sexual interest. In two experiments, the pupillary responses of heterosexual adults to images of males and females of different ages were related to self-reported sexual interest, sexual appeal to the stimuli, and a child molestation proclivity scale. In both experiments, the pupils of male observers dilated to photographs of women but not men, children or neutral stimuli. These pupillary responses corresponded with observer’s self-reported sexual interests and their sexual appeal ratings of the stimuli. Female observers showed pupil dilation to photographs of men and women but not children. In women, pupillary responses also correlated poorly with sexual appeal ratings of the stimuli. These experiments provide initial evidence that eye-tracking could be used as a measure of sex-specific interest in male observers, and as an age-specific index in male and female observers

Why Are Some People Better at Recognising Faces Than Others?

Imagine you lose sight of your friends (or parents) for a moment while you are out at the park. You glance around and then spot them in the distance. You easily pick them out from all the other people in the park and you correctly identify them. This process is called familiar face recognition. For most of us, this process seems easy and generally people are good at recognising familiar faces. However, a few people really struggle to recognise the people around them. Other people are “super-recognisers” who have an extraordinary ability to recognise faces very accurately. How good are you at recognising faces? In this article, we outline why some people are better (or worse) at recognising faces and explore the possible importance of brain differences, mental processes, and personality in this ability

Cross-race correlations in the abilities to match unfamiliar faces

The other-race effect in face identification has been documented widely in memory tasks, but it persists also in identity-matching tasks, in which memory contributions are minimized. Whereas this points to a perceptual locus for this effect, it remains unresolved whether matching performance with same- and other-race faces is driven by shared cognitive mechanisms. To examine this question, this study compared Arab and Caucasian observers’ ability to match faces of their own race with their ability to match faces of another race using one-to-one (Experiment 1) and one-to-many (Experiment 2) identification tasks. Across both experiments, Arab and Caucasian observers demonstrated reliable other-race effects at a group level. At an individual level, substantial variation in accuracy was found, but performance with same-race and other-race faces correlated consistently and strongly. This indicates that the abilities to match same- and other-race faces share a common cognitive mechanism

Why Are Some People Better at Recognising Faces Than Others?

From Frontiers via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-08-21, collection 2021, accepted 2021-09-02, epub 2021-10-21Publication status: PublishedImagine you lose sight of your friends (or parents) for a moment while you are out at the park. You glance around and then spot them in the distance. You easily pick them out from all the other people in the park and you correctly identify them. This process is called familiar face recognition. For most of us, this process seems easy and generally people are good at recognising familiar faces. However, a few people really struggle to recognise the people around them. Other people are “super-recognisers” who have an extraordinary ability to recognise faces very accurately. How good are you at recognising faces? In this article, we outline why some people are better (or worse) at recognising faces and explore the possible importance of brain differences, mental processes, and personality in this ability

Multisensory stimulation of other-race faces and the reduction of racial prejudice

This study investigated whether multisensory stimulation with other-race faces can reduce racial prejudice. In three experiments, the faces of Caucasian observers were stroked with a cotton bud while they watched a black face being stroked in synchrony on a computer screen. This was compared with a neutral condition, in which no tactile stimulation was administered (Experiment 1 and 2), and with a condition in which observers' faces were stroked in asynchrony with the onscreen face (Experiment 3). In all experiments, observers experienced an enfacement illusion after synchronous stimulation, whereby they reported to embody the other-race face. However, this effect did not produce concurrent changes in implicit or explicit racial prejudice. This outcome contrasts with other procedures for the reduction of self-other differences that decrease racial prejudice, such as behavioural mimicry and intergroup contact. We speculate that enfacement is less effective for such prejudice reduction because it does not encourage perspective-taking