Dominance of texture over shape in facial identity processing is modulated by individual abilities

For face recognition, observers utilize both shape and texture information. Here, we investigated the relative diagnosticity of shape and texture for delayed matching of familiar and unfamiliar faces (Experiment 1) and identifying familiar and newly learned faces (Experiment 2). Within each familiarity condition, pairs of 3D-captured faces were morphed selectively in either shape or texture in 20% steps, holding the respective other dimension constant. We also assessed participants' individual face-processing skills via the Bielefelder Famous Faces Test (BFFT), the Glasgow Face Matching Test, and the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). Using multilevel model analyses, we examined probabilities of same versus different responses (Experiment 1) and of original identity versus other/unknown identity responses (Experiment 2). Overall, texture was more diagnostic than shape for both delayed matching and identification, particularly so for familiar faces. On top of these overall effects, above-average BFFT performance was associated with enhanced utilization of texture in both experiments. Furthermore, above-average CFMT performance coincided with slightly reduced texture dominance in the delayed matching task (Experiment 1) and stronger sensitivity to morph-based changes overall, that is irrespective of morph type, in the face identification task (Experiment 2). Our findings (1) show the disproportionate importance of texture information for processing familiar face identity and (2) provide further evidence that familiar and unfamiliar face identity perception are mediated by different underlying processes.

[1]  Claudia Schulz,et al.  Faces forming traces: Neurophysiological correlates of learning naturally distinctive and caricatured faces , 2012, NeuroImage.

[2]  H S Levin,et al.  Prosopagnosia: adouble dissociation between the recognition offamiliar andunfamiliar faces , 1982 .

[3]  Claudia Schulz,et al.  High and low performers differ in the use of shape information for face recognition , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  Hugo Quené,et al.  On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: a tutorial , 2004, Speech Commun..

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

[6]  Jürgen M. Kaufmann,et al.  Distortions in the brain? ERP effects of caricaturing familiar and unfamiliar faces , 2008, Brain Research.

[7]  A. Burton,et al.  Acute Anxiety Impairs Accuracy in Identifying Photographed Faces , 2013, Psychological science.

[8]  R. McKelvey,et al.  A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables , 1975 .

[9]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[10]  F. Keil,et al.  Categorical effects in the perception of faces , 1995, Cognition.

[11]  G. A. Marcoulides,et al.  Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications , 2002 .

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

[13]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  Tolerance for distorted faces: Challenges to a configural processing account of familiar face recognition , 2014, Cognition.

[14]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Features, Configuration, and Holistic Face Processing , 2011 .

[15]  R. Johnston,et al.  Demonstrating how unfamiliar faces become familiar using a face matching task , 2005 .

[16]  D. Perkins A Definition of Caricature and Caricature and Recognition , 1975 .

[17]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  Effects of attractiveness on face memory separated from distinctiveness: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  Lesa Hoffman,et al.  Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[19]  Stefan R. Schweinberger,et al.  Covert Recognition and the Neural System for Face Processing , 2003, Cortex.

[20]  Joachim Bodamer,et al.  Die Prosop-Agnosie , 2004, Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten.

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

[22]  D. Perrett,et al.  Manipulation of Colour and Shape Information and its Consequence upon Recognition and Best-Likeness Judgments , 2000, Perception.

[23]  Sarah Bate,et al.  Socio-emotional functioning and face recognition ability in the normal population , 2010 .

[24]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Recognising Facial Surfaces , 1991, Perception.

[25]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  The faces you remember: Caricaturing shape facilitates brain processes reflecting the acquisition of new face representations , 2012, Biological Psychology.

[27]  I. Biederman,et al.  Is Pigmentation Important for Face Recognition? Evidence from Contrast Negation , 2006, Perception.

[28]  H. Ellis,et al.  Bodamer's (1947) paper on prosopagnosia , 1990 .

[29]  G. Hole,et al.  Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance , 2002, Perception.

[30]  A. Burton,et al.  Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching , 2014, PloS one.

[31]  Jules Davidoff,et al.  Face Familiarity, Distinctiveness, and Categorical Perception , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Capturing specific abilities as a window into human individuality: The example of face recognition , 2012, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[33]  David White,et al.  Evaluating Training Methods for Facial Image Comparison: The Face Shape Strategy Does Not Work , 2014, Perception.

[34]  Satterthwaite Fe An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946 .

[35]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  Holistic processing of faces happens at a glance , 2009, Vision Research.

[36]  T. Valentine The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology a Unified Account of the Effects of Distinctiveness, Inversion, and Race in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[37]  J. Macke,et al.  Quantifying the effect of intertrial dependence on perceptual decisions. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[38]  Laura Germine,et al.  Face recognition ability matures late: evidence from individual differences in young adults. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[40]  Robert S. Stawski,et al.  Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (2nd Edition) , 2013 .

[41]  V. Blanz,et al.  Holistic processing of shape cues in face identification: Evidence from face inversion, composite faces, and acquired prosopagnosia , 2011 .

[42]  W. Sommer,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Individual Differences in Perceiving and Recognizing Faces — One Element of Social Cognition , 2010 .

[43]  G. Kovács,et al.  Young without plastic surgery: Perceptual adaptation to the age of female and male faces , 2010, Vision Research.

[44]  Susan E. Brennan,et al.  Caricature Generator: The Dynamic Exaggeration of Faces by Computer , 2017 .

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

[46]  Claudia Schulz,et al.  Neural correlates of facilitations in face learning by selective caricaturing of facial shape or reflectance , 2014, NeuroImage.

[47]  Thomas Vetter,et al.  Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: an application of three-dimensional morphing , 1999, Vision Research.

[48]  Galit Yovel,et al.  What can individual differences reveal about face processing? , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[49]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  Effects of anticaricaturing vs. caricaturing and their neural correlates elucidate a role of shape for face learning , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[50]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognizing familiar faces: the role of distinctiveness and familiarity. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[51]  Nuala Brady,et al.  Perception of ‘Best Likeness’ to Highly Familiar Faces of Self and Friend , 2009, Perception.

[52]  I. Biederman,et al.  The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces , 2007, Vision Research.

[53]  G. Pike,et al.  When Seeing should not be Believing: Photographs, Credit Cards and Fraud , 1997 .

[54]  Stefan R Schweinberger,et al.  Aging affects sex categorization of male and female faces in opposite ways. , 2015, Acta psychologica.

[55]  D. Roberson,et al.  What’s in the name? Categorical perception for unfamiliar faces can occur through labeling , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[57]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Developmental prosopagnosia and super-recognition: No special role for surface reflectance processing , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[58]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[59]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Caricature Effects, Distinctiveness, and Identification: Testing the Face-Space Framework , 2000, Psychological science.

[60]  S. Schweinberger,et al.  Effects of spatial caricaturing and anti-caricaturing on face learning , 2012 .

[61]  J. A. Pruszynski,et al.  Neural correlates , 2023 .

[62]  M. Junghöfer,et al.  Early Left-Hemispheric Dysfunction of Face Processing in Congenital Prosopagnosia: An MEG Study , 2008, PloS one.

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

[64]  F. E. Satterthwaite An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946, Biometrics.

[65]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognition of unfamiliar faces , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[66]  P. Sinha,et al.  Real-World Face Recognition: The Importance of Surface Reflectance Properties , 2007, Perception.

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

[68]  V Bruce,et al.  The Use of Pigmentation and Shading Information in Recognising the Sex and Identities of Faces , 1994, Perception.

[69]  Nick Barnes,et al.  A new theoretical approach to improving face recognition in disorders of central vision: face caricaturing. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[70]  Tim Rakow,et al.  Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[71]  Andrew J. Edmonds,et al.  Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review , 2009, Memory.