Differences between and within individuals, and subprocesses of face cognition: implications for theory, research and personnel selection

Abstract

Recent investigations of individual differences have demonstrated striking variability in performance both within the same subprocess in face cognition (e.g. face perception), but also between two different subprocesses (i.e. face perception versus face recognition ) that are assessed using different tasks (face matching versus face memory ). Such differences between and within individuals between and within laboratory tests raise practical challenges. This applies in particular to the development of screening tests for the selection of personnel in real-world settings where faces are routinely processed, such as at passport control. The aim of this study, therefore, was to examine the performance profiles of individuals within and across two different subprocesses of face cognition: face perception and face recognition. To this end, 146 individuals completed four different tests of face matching—one novel tool for assessing proficiency in face perception, as well as three established measures—and two benchmark tests of face memory probing face recognition. In addition to correlational analyses, we further scrutinized individual performance profiles of the highest and lowest performing observers identified per test , as well as across all tests . Overall, a number of correlations emerged between tests. However, there was limited evidence at the individual level to suggest that high proficiency in one test generalized to other tests measuring the same subprocess, as well as those that measured a different subprocess. Beyond emphasizing the need to honour inter-individual differences through careful multivariate assessment in the laboratory, our findings have real-world implications: combinations of tests that most accurately map the task(s) and processes of interest are required for personnel selection.

Super-Recognizers: More Consistent or Qualitatively Different Psychophysical Profiles?

“…SRs who participated in this study were recruited from a larger cohort of recently reported SR individuals (Ramon, 2021). In short, they were identified as disposing of exceptional face processing ability if they achieved high performance (among the top 5% of previously tested normative samples; Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh et al, 2020) on at least two of three challenging tests of face cognition: the YBT (long form; Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh et al, 2020;Bruck et al, 1991), the FICST (Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh et al, 2020;Jenkins, White, Van Montfort & Burton, 2011), and the CFMT+ (Russell et al, 2009). SR status was conferred only for those whose performance exceeded the 95% CI for typical performance on at least two of the three.…”

“…Ability in matching images of unfamiliar face identities varies widely between neurotypical adults (Fox & Bindeman, 2020;Estudillo & Bindemann, 2014;Fysh & Bindemann, 2017;Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh et al, 2020). At the upper end of this spectrum are Super-Recognizers (SRs), originally reported by Russel, Duchaine and Nakayama (2009) as possessing exceptional facial identity processing capabilities across a range of subprocesses, including face matching, recognition, and identification.…”

“…The single-criterion approach to SR diagnosis is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it is well-established that superior performance on one face cognition task/subprocess does not generalize to others (Bobak et al, 2016b;Bate et al, 2018;Lander, Bruce & Bindeman, 2018;Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh, 2018;Fysh et al, 2020), so criterion performance on any single task/sub-process should not be considered sufficient evidence of processing superiority to warrant generalizing across tasks/sub-processes. Second, some tests that have been used as a criterion for superior skill are either inappropriate, or often insufficiently sensitive for SR diagnosis.…”

“…Therefore, reduction of false positives-and by extension the advancement of our understanding of SRs' abilities-requires a more conservative framework for their diagnosis (Ramon, 2021). Moreover, these criteria should be evaluated within the context of cross-task consistency within observers (Ramon et al, 2019;Stacchi et al, 2020;Fysh et al, 2020), in order to determine whether SRs indeed consistently live up to their namesake in distinguishing themselves from the general population. Diagnostic issues aside, previous empirical studies of SRs generally fall short with respect to two major issues: failure to systematically vary any parameters across the full face stimulus, and consideration of only simple performance measures.…”

Psychophysical profiles in super-recognizers

“…Ability in matching images of unfamiliar face identities varies widely between neurotypical adults 1 – 5 . At the upper end of this spectrum are super-recognizers (SRs), originally reported by Russell et al 6 as possessing exceptional facial identity processing capabilities across a range of sub-processes, including face matching, recognition, and identification.…”