Categorical perception (CP) is a fundamental cognitive process that enables us to sort similar objects in the world into meaningful categories with clear boundaries between them. CP has been found for high-level stimuli like human faces, more precisely, for the perception of face identity, expression and ethnicity. For sex however, which represents another important and biologically relevant dimension of human faces, results have been equivocal so far. Here, we reinvestigate CP for sex using newly created face stimuli to control two factors that to our opinion might have influenced the results in earlier studies. Our new stimuli are (a) derived from single face identities, so that changes of sex are not confounded with changes of identity information, and (b) "normalized" in their degree of maleness and femaleness, to counteract natural variations of perceived masculinity and femininity of faces that might obstruct evidence of categorical perception. Despite careful normalization, we did not find evidence of CP for sex using classical test procedures, unless participants were specifically familiarized with the face identities before testing. These results support the single-route hypothesis, stating that sex and identity information in faces are not processed in parallel, in contrast to what was suggested in the classical Bruce and Young model of face perception. Besides, interestingly, our participants show a consistent bias, before and after perceptual normalization of the male-female range of the test morph continua, to judge faces as male rather than female.

Familiar faces are remembered better than unfamiliar faces. Furthermore, it is much easier to match images of familiar than unfamiliar faces. These findings could be accounted for by quantitative differences in the ease with which faces are encoded. However, it has been argued that there are also some qualitative differences in familiar and unfamiliar face processing. Unfamiliar faces are held to rely on superficial, pictorial representations, whereas familiar faces invoke more abstract representations. Here we present 2 studies that show, for 1 task, an advantage for unfamiliar faces. In recognition memory, viewers are better able to reject a new picture, if it depicts an unfamiliar face. This rare advantage for unfamiliar faces supports the notion that familiarity brings about some representational changes, and further emphasizes the idea that theoretical accounts of face processing should incorporate familiarity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Knowing where people look on a face provides an objective insight into the information entering the visual system and into cognitive processes involved in face perception. In the present study, we recorded eye movements of human participants while they compared two faces presented simultaneously. Observers‘ viewing behavior and performance was examined in two tasks of parametrically varying difficulty, using two types of face stimuli (sex morphs and identity morphs). The frequency, duration, and temporal sequence of fixations on previously defined areas of interest in the faces were analyzed. As was expected, viewing behavior and performance varied with difficulty. Interestingly, observers compared predominantly the inner halves of the face stimuli—a result inconsistent with the general left-hemiface bias reported for single faces. Furthermore, fixation patterns and performance differed between tasks, independently of stimulus type. Moreover, we found differences in male and female participants‘ viewing behaviors, but only when the sex of the face stimuli was task relevant

Race categorization of faces is a fast and automatic process and is known to affect further face processing profoundly and at earliest stages. Whether processing of own- and other-race faces might rely on different facial cues, as indicated by diverging viewing behavior, is much under debate. We therefore aimed to investigate two open questions in our study: (1) Do observers consider information from distinct facial features informative for race categorization or do they prefer to gain global face information by fixating the geometrical center of the face? (2) Does the fixation pattern, or, if facial features are considered relevant, do these features differ between own- and other-race faces? We used eye tracking to test where European observers look when viewing Asian and Caucasian faces in a race categorization task. Importantly, in order to disentangle centrally located fixations from those towards individual facial features, we presented faces in frontal, half-profile and profile views. We found that observers showed no general bias towards looking at the geometrical center of faces, but rather directed their first fixations towards distinct facial features, regardless of face race. However, participants looked at the eyes more often in Caucasian faces than in Asian faces, and there were significantly more fixations to the nose for Asian compared to Caucasian faces. Thus, observers rely on information from distinct facial features rather than facial information gained by centrally fixating the face. To what extent specific features are looked at is determined by the face's race.

Models of face perception often adopt a framework in which faces are represented as points or vectors in a multidimensional space, relative to the average face that serves as a norm for encoding. Since faces are very similar in their configuration and share many visual properties, they could be encoded in one common space against one norm. However, certain face properties may result in grouping and "subclassification" of similar faces. We studied the processing of faces of different races, using high-level aftereffects, where exposure to one face systematically distorts the perception of a subsequently viewed face toward the "opposite" identity in face space. We measured identity aftereffects for adapt-test pairs that were opposite relative to race-specific (Asian and Caucasian) averages and pairs that were opposite relative to a "generic" average (both races morphed together). Aftereffects were larger for race-specific compared to mixed-race adapt-test pairs. These results suggest that race-specific norms are used to code identity because aftereffects are generally larger for adapt-test pairs drawn from trajectories passing through the norm (opposite pairs) than for those that do not. We also found that identification thresholds were lower when targets were distributed around race-specific averages than around the mixed-race average, suggesting that norm-based face encoding may play a functional role in facilitating identity discrimination.