We tested four people who claimed to have significantly better than ordinary face recognition ability. Exceptional ability was confirmed in each case. On two very different tests of face recognition, all four experimental subjects performed beyond the range of control subject performance. They also scored significantly better than average on a perceptual discrimination test with faces. This effect was larger with upright than inverted faces, and the four subjects showed a larger ‘inversion effect’ than control subjects, who in turn showed a larger inversion effect than developmental prosopagnosics. This indicates an association between face recognition ability and the magnitude of the inversion effect. Overall, these ‘super-recognizers’ are about as good at face recognition and perception as developmental prosopagnosics are bad. Our findings demonstrate the existence of people with exceptionally good face recognition ability, and show that the range of face recognition and face perception ability is wider than previously acknowledged.

No abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become a popular tool for investigations into the neural correlates of cognitive activity. One limitation of fMRI, however, is that it has difficulty imaging regions near tissue interfaces due to distortions from macroscopic susceptibility effects which become more severe at higher magnetic field strengths. This difficulty can be particularly problematic for language tasks that engage regions of the temporal lobes near the air-filled sinuses. This paper investigates susceptibility-induced signal loss in the temporal lobes and proposes that by defining a priori regions of interest and using the small-volume statistical correction of K. J. Worsley, S. Marrett, P. Neelin, A. C. Vandal, K. J. Friston, and A. C. Evans (1996, Hum. Brain Mapp. 4: 58 -83), activations in these areas can sometimes be detected by increasing the statistical power of the analysis. We conducted two experiments, one with PET and the other with fMRI, using almost identical semantic categorization paradigms and comparable methods of analysis. There were areas of overlap as well as differences between the PET and fMRI results. One anticipated difference was a lack of activation in two regions in the temporal lobe on initial analyses in the fMRI data set. With a specific region of interest, however, activation in one of the regions was detected. These experiments demonstrate three points: first, even for almost identical cognitive tasks such as those in this study, PET and fMRI may not produce identical results; second, differences between the two methods due to macroscopic susceptibility artifacts in fMRI can be overcome with appropriate statistical corrections, but only partially; and third, new data acquisition paradigms are necessary to fully deal with susceptibility-induced signal loss if the sensitivity of the fMRI experiment to temporal lobe activations is to be enhanced.

This study demonstrates the existence of a sex difference in facial contrast. By measuring carefully controlled photographic images, female faces were shown to have greater luminance contrast between the eyes, lips, and the surrounding skin than did male faces. This sex difference in facial contrast was found to influence the perception of facial gender. An androgynous face can be made to appear female by increasing the facial contrast, or to appear male by decreasing the facial contrast. Application of cosmetics was found to consistently increase facial contrast. Female faces wearing cosmetics had greater facial contrast than the same faces not wearing cosmetics. Female facial beauty is known to be closely linked to sex differences, with femininity considered attractive. These results suggest that cosmetics may function in part by exaggerating a sexually dimorphic attribute-facial contrast-to make the face appear more feminine and hence attractive.

It has been suggested that the consistent luminance difference between the darker regions of the eyes and mouth and the lighter regions that surround them forms a pattern unique to faces. One of the more consistent uses of cosmetics to make the female face more attractive is to darken the eyes and mouth relative to the surrounding skin. The hypothesis that the size of the luminance difference between the eyes and mouth and the rest of the face affects the attractiveness of male and female faces differently was tested in four experiments in which attractiveness ratings were obtained for images of faces in which the luminance difference between the eyes and mouth and the rest of the face had been manipulated. Female faces were found to be more attractive when this luminance difference was increased than when it was decreased, and the opposite was found for male faces. An interpretation consistent with these results is that the luminance difference between the eyes and mouth and the rest of the face is naturally greater in women than men. In this case increasing or decreasing the luminance difference will make a face more feminine or masculine, respectively, and hence, more or less attractive depending on the sex of the face. Implications for the causes of cosmetics usage are discussed.

Summary Although certain characteristics of human faces are broadly considered more attractive (e.g. symmetry, averageness), people also routinely disagree with each other on the relative attractiveness of faces. That is, to some significant degree, beauty is in the “eye of the beholder”. Here, we investigate the origins of these individual differences in face preferences using a twin design, allowing us to estimate the relative contributions of genetic and environmental variation to individual face attractiveness judgments or face preferences. We first show that individual face preferences (IP) can be reliably measured and are readily dissociable from other types of attractiveness judgments (e.g. judgments of scenes, objects). Next we show that individual face preferences result primarily from environments that are unique to each individual. This is in striking contrast to individual differences in face identity recognition, which result primarily from variations in genes [1]. We thus complete an etiological double dissociation between two core domains of social perception (judgments of identity versus attractiveness) within the same visual stimulus (the face). At the same time, we provide an example, rare in behavioral genetics, of a reliably and objectively measured behavioral characteristic where variations are shaped mostly by the environment. The large impact of experience on individual face preferences provides a novel window into the evolution and architecture of the social brain, while lending new empirical support to the long-standing claim that environments shape individual notions of what is attractive.

No abstract

Age is a primary social dimension. We behave differently toward people as a function of how old we perceive them to be. Age perception relies on cues that are correlated with age, such as wrinkles. Here we report that aspects of facial contrast–the contrast between facial features and the surrounding skin–decreased with age in a large sample of adult Caucasian females. These same aspects of facial contrast were also significantly correlated with the perceived age of the faces. Individual faces were perceived as younger when these aspects of facial contrast were artificially increased, but older when these aspects of facial contrast were artificially decreased. These findings show that facial contrast plays a role in age perception, and that faces with greater facial contrast look younger. Because facial contrast is increased by typical cosmetics use, we infer that cosmetics function in part by making the face appear younger.