Self-face perception: Individual differences and discrepancies associated with mental self-face representation, attractiveness and self-esteem.

Felisberti, Fatima M.; Musholt, Kristina

doi:10.3922/j.psns.2014.013

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The nose was the most overestimated area (103.84%), whilst the left eye was the least (54.29%). Similarly, a recent study in self-face perception (using two-alternative forced choice task with distorted images) has shown how the accuracy to recognise the real size of face features is worse for the nose, followed by the mouth, and lastly by the eyes ( (Felisberti & Musholt, 2014). Yet, if somatosensory representation was causing these distortions, we would expect larger overestimation of the lips in comparison with the nose or eyes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Studies using tactile information have also shown a pattern of distortions on the forehead similar to the hand when using the two-point discrimination task, as both skin areas have similar acuity (Miller, Longo, & Saygin, 2016). Another study, using participants' face pictures, in a forced-choice paradigm, showed a tendency to perceive the nose size less accurately than the size of the mouth or of the eyes (Felisberti & Musholt, 2014). Whilst these do capture how one's own body is represented, they do not capture a pure structural representation within personal space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Despite this, self-face representation is not static and is susceptible to representational plasticity and multisensory influences. This plasticity is an adaptive quality to maintain a coherent sense of self despite the subtle physical changes that faces experience with the passage of time (Felisberti & Musholt, 2014;Walton & Hills, 2012). Representational plasticity is also a shared characteristic with other body areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the hands are susceptible to modulation of sensory information as the effects of extensive practice (e.g., Cocchini, Galligan, Mora, & Kuhn, 2018;Cavina-Pratesi, Kuhn, Ietswaart, & da Milner, 2011), which may reflect functional-anatomical modifications of underlying regions of the brain (e.g., Burton, Sinclair, & McLaren, 2004;Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rockstroh, & Taub, 1995). Self-face representation is also linked to attractiveness criteria, with a preference for having larger eyes and small nose, and selfesteem (Felisberti & Musholt, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, face research has been predominantly focused on face recognition across sensory modalities (Casey & Newell, 2005), whilst few attempts have been made to study the underlying body model as per other body parts. In previous studies, there is a predominant use of depictive tasks that rely on visual information, for example, pointing to different locations for size estimation on a computer screen (Fuentes, Runa, Blanco, Orvalho, & Haggard, 2013), drawing the head's outline (Bianchi, Savardi, & Bertamini, 2008) or using visual estimation tasks (D'Amour & Harris, 2017;Felisberti & Musholt, 2014;Linkenauger et al, 2015). In general, the representation of the face is distorted, showing a tendency to overestimate width and underestimate length (D'Amour & Harris, 2017;Fuentes et al, 2013;Linkenauger et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

My true face: Unmasking one's own face representation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face recognition has been the focus of multiple studies, but little is still known on how we represent the structure of one's own face. Most of the studies have focused on the topic of visual and haptic face recognition, but the metric representation of different features of one's own face is relatively unknown. We investigated the metric representation of the face in young adults by developing a proprioceptive pointing task to locate face landmarks in the first-person perspective. Our data revealed a large overestimation of width for all face features which resembles, in part, the size in somatosensory cortical representation. In contrast, face length was compartmentalised in two different regions: upper (underestimated) and bottom (overestimated); indicating size differences possibly due to functionality. We also identified shifts of the location judgments, with all face areas perceived closer to the body than they really were, due to a potential influence of the self-frame of reference. More importantly, the representation of the face appeared asymmetrical, with an overrepresentation of right side of the face, due to the influence of lateralization biases for strong right-handers. We suggest that these effects may be due to functionality influences and experience that affect the construction of face structural representation, going beyond the parallel of the somatosensory homunculus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

My true face: Unmasking one's own face representation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Analyzing the Impact of Instagram Filters on Facial Expression Recognition Algorithms

Gupta,

Saurav,

Singh

2024

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The signing body: extensive sign language practice shapes the size of hands and face

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The representation of the metrics of the hands is distorted, but is susceptible to malleability due to expert dexterity (magicians) and long-term tool use (baseball players). However, it remains unclear whether modulation leads to a stable representation of the hand that is adopted in every circumstance, or whether the modulation is closely linked to the spatial context where the expertise occurs. To this aim, a group of 10 experienced Sign Language (SL) interpreters were recruited to study the selective influence of expertise and space localisation in the metric representation of hands. Experiment 1 explored differences in hands’ size representation between the SL interpreters and 10 age-matched controls in near-reaching (Condition 1) and far-reaching space (Condition 2), using the localisation task. SL interpreters presented reduced hand size in near-reaching condition, with characteristic underestimation of finger lengths, and reduced overestimation of hands and wrists widths in comparison with controls. This difference was lost in far-reaching space, confirming the effect of expertise on hand representations is closely linked to the spatial context where an action is performed. As SL interpreters are also experts in the use of their face with communication purposes, the effects of expertise in the metrics of the face were also studied (Experiment 2). SL interpreters were more accurate than controls, with overall reduction of width overestimation. Overall, expertise modifies the representation of relevant body parts in a specific and context-dependent manner. Hence, different representations of the same body part can coexist simultaneously.

show abstract

Self-face perception: Individual differences and discrepancies associated with mental self-face representation, attractiveness and self-esteem.

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

My true face: Unmasking one's own face representation

My true face: Unmasking one's own face representation

Analyzing the Impact of Instagram Filters on Facial Expression Recognition Algorithms

The signing body: extensive sign language practice shapes the size of hands and face

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About