Familiarity does not inhibit image-specific encoding of faces.

When matching and recognizing familiar faces, performance is unaffected by changes to image-specific details such as lighting, head angle, and expression. In contrast, these changes have a substantial impact on performance when faces are unfamiliar. What process can account for this difference? Recent evidence shows a memory disadvantage for remembering specific images of familiar people compared to unfamiliar people, suggesting that image invariance in familiar face processing may be supported by loss of image-specific details in memory. Here, we examine whether this cost results from loss of image specific details during encoding of familiar faces. Participants completed four tasks that required participants to retain image-specific information in working memory: duplicate detection (Experiment 1), change detection (Experiment 2), short-term recognition memory (Experiment 3 and 5), and visual search (Experiment 4). Across all experiments (combined n = 270), our results consistently show equivalent memory performance for specific images of familiar and unfamiliar faces. We conclude that familiarity does not influence encoding of pictorial details, suggesting that loss of image-specificity reported in previous work is a result of longer-term storage mechanisms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Benjamin Balas,et al.  The Effect of Real-World Personal Familiarity on the Speed of Face Information Processing , 2007, PloS one.

[3]  V Bruce,et al.  Naming faces and naming names: exploring an interactive activation model of person recognition. , 1993, Memory.

[4]  Hiroshi Ito,et al.  Familiar and Unfamiliar Face Recognition in a Crowd , 2014 .

[5]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[6]  Andrew J. Edmonds,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS OF FAMILIAR AND UNFAMILIAR FACES , 2009 .

[7]  Angus Chapman,et al.  How robust is familiar face recognition , 2017 .

[8]  Ahmed M Megreya,et al.  Matching faces to photographs: poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  Paul Miller,et al.  Verification of face identities from images captured on video. , 1999 .

[10]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[11]  Galit Yovel,et al.  A Revised Neural Framework for Face Processing. , 2015, Annual review of vision science.

[12]  James B. Rowe,et al.  Different Neural Mechanisms within Occipitotemporal Cortex Underlie Repetition Suppression across Same and Different-Size Faces , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[13]  A. Young,et al.  The automaticity of face perception is influenced by familiarity , 2017, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[14]  Tessa R. Flack,et al.  Patterns of neural response in face regions are predicted by low-level image properties , 2018, Cortex.

[15]  Angus F. Chapman,et al.  How robust is familiar face recognition? A repeat detection study of more than 1000 faces , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[16]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Getting satisfied with “satisfaction of search”: How to measure errors during multiple-target visual search , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Spatiotemporal changes in neural response patterns to faces varying in visual familiarity , 2015, NeuroImage.

[18]  A. Burton,et al.  Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[19]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face Recognition in Poor-Quality Video: Evidence From Security Surveillance , 1999 .

[20]  A. Burton,et al.  The Glasgow Face Matching Test , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[21]  T. Shallice,et al.  Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. , 2000, Science.

[22]  B. Balas,et al.  Intra- and extra-personal variability in person recognition , 2017 .

[23]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .

[24]  D. Perrett,et al.  Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations , 1998, Cognition.

[25]  J. Haxby,et al.  The distributed human neural system for face perception , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Andrew W Young,et al.  Learning faces from photographs. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. , 1999 .

[29]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Is sex categorization from faces really parallel to face recognition? , 2002 .

[30]  R. Gregory.  The Medawar Lecture 2001 Knowledge for vision: vision for knowledge , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  A. Burton,et al.  Variability in photos of the same face , 2011, Cognition.

[32]  Manos Tsakiris,et al.  Predictive codes of familiarity and context during the perceptual learning of facial identities , 2013, Nature Communications.

[33]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[34]  David White,et al.  Search templates that incorporate within-face variation improve visual search for faces , 2018, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[35]  Jane E Raymond,et al.  Familiarity enhances visual working memory for faces. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding the recognition of facial identity and facial expression , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[37]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  V. Bruce.  Stability from Variation: The Case of Face Recognition the M.D. Vernon Memorial Lecture , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[39]  J. Haxby,et al.  Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[40]  G. Kovács,et al.  Integrating predictive frameworks and cognitive models of face perception , 2018, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[41]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  Dual-Target Cost in Visual Search for Multiple Unfamiliar Faces. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[42]  V. Bruce.  Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[43]  Hany Farid,et al.  Task Demands Determine the Specificity of the Search Template , 2022 .

[44]  C. Mondloch,et al.  How does a newly encountered face become familiar? The effect of within-person variability on adults’ and children’s perception of identity , 2016, Cognition.

[45]  Marlene Behrmann,et al.  Distinct neural processes for the perception of familiar versus unfamiliar faces along the visual hierarchy revealed by EEG , 2018, NeuroImage.

[46]  David White,et al.  Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining the photo-ID paradox , 2015, Cognition.

[47]  A. Burton,et al.  What makes a face photo a ‘good likeness’? , 2018, Cognition.

[48]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  Identity From Variation: Representations of Faces Derived From Multiple Instances , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[49]  V. Bruce,et al.  Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[50]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[51]  C. Carbon.  Famous Faces as Icons. The Illusion of Being an Expert in the Recognition of Famous Faces , 2008, Perception.

[52]  J. S. Guntupalli,et al.  Facilitated detection of social cues conveyed by familiar faces , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[53]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face Familiarity Decisions Take 200 msec in the Human Brain: Electrophysiological Evidence from a Go/No-go Speeded Task , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[54]  A. Young,et al.  Expectations about person identity modulate the face-sensitive N170 , 2016, Cortex.

[55]  Hany Farid,et al.  The specificity of the search template. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[56]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  D. White,et al.  Choosing face: The curse of self in profile image selection , 2017, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[58]  M. Gobbini,et al.  Familiarity matters: A review on prioritized processing of personally familiar faces , 2018 .

[59]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  A familiarity disadvantage for remembering specific images of faces. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[60]  P. Hancock,et al.  Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[61]  A W Ellis,et al.  Two loci of repetition priming in the recognition of familiar faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[62]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[63]  M. Ida Gobbini,et al.  Familiar Face Detection in 180ms , 2015, PloS one.