Sex-specific norms code face identity

Abstract

Face identity aftereffects suggest that an average face, which is continuously updated by experience, functions as a norm for coding identity. Sex-contingent figural face aftereffects indicate that different norms are maintained for male and female faces but do not directly implicate them in coding identity. Here, we investigated whether sex-specific norms are used to code the identities of male and female faces or whether a generic, androgynous norm is used for all faces. We measured identity aftereffects for adapt-test pairs that were opposite relative to a sex-specific average and pairs that were opposite relative to an androgynous average. Identity aftereffects are generally larger for adapt-test pairs that lie opposite an average face, which functions as a norm for coding identity, than those that do not. Therefore, we reasoned that whichever average gives the larger aftereffect would be closer to the true psychological norm. Aftereffects were substantially and significantly larger for pairs that lie opposite a sex-specific than an androgynous average. This difference remained significant after correcting for differences in test trajectory length. These results indicate that, despite the common structure shared by all faces, identity is coded using sex-specific norms. We suggest that the use of category-specific norms may increase coding efficiency and help us discriminate thousands of faces despite their similarity as patterns.

Not just the norm: Exemplar-based models also predict face aftereffects

“…This seems reasonable given that face identity adaptation effects have been used as evidence regarding the nature of face-space representations, whether they are norm-based or exemplar-based (e.g. Jeffery et al, 2010; Leopold & Bondar, 2005; Leopold et al, 2001; Rhodes & Leopold, 2011; Rhodes & Jaquet, 2011; Rhodes, et al, 2011; Rhodes & Jeffery, 2006; Rhodes et al, 2010; Rhodes et al, 2005; Tsao & Freiwald, 2006). Furthermore, many illustrations of adaptation effects have used 2D face-space representations (Robbins et al, 2007; Rhodes & Jeffery, 2006; Rhodes, 2005), which could suggest that adaptation is acting within the face-space layer itself.…”

“…These findings and several subsequent extensions of the anti-face paradigm (e.g., Jeffery et al, 2010; Leopold & Bondar, 2005; Rhodes & Jeffery, 2006) have lead to a widespread acceptance of the norm-based account of face representation (e.g., Griffin, McOwan, & Johnston, 2011; Jeffery et al, 2010; Leopold & Bondar, 2005; Leopold et al, 2001; Nishimura et al 2010; Nishimura et al, 2008; Nishimura, Robertson, & Maurer, 2011; Palermo et al, 2011; Pellicano et al, 2007; Rhodes & Jaquet, 2011; Rhodes, et al, 2011; Rhodes & Jeffery, 2006; Rhodes & Leopold, 2011; Rhodes et al, 2005; Rhodes et al, 2010; Robbins, McKone, & Edwards, 2007; Short, Hatry, & Mondloch, 2011; Susilo, McKone, & Edwards, 2010a; Susilo, McKone, & Edwards, 2010b; Tsao & Freiwald, 2006). …”

Face Adaptation Effects: Reviewing the Impact of Adapting Information, Time, and Transfer

“…After perceiving an “anti-face” (located opposite an original face of an identity, on a trajectory crossing this original face and a face-space average), adaptation specifically shifted perception along a trajectory passing through the adapting anti-face and average face away from the original face, selectively facilitating recognition of a test face lying on this trajectory. Such adaptation effects on the identity level were replicated in a number of studies and variations (Hurlbert, 2001; Anderson and Wilson, 2005; Leopold et al, 2005; Rhodes and Jeffery, 2006; Rhodes et al, 2009a, 2010, 2011; Palermo et al, 2011) and are often explicitly referred to as changes of the face space.…”

No own-age bias in 3-year-old children: More evidence for the role of early experience in building face-processing biases

“…An open question for future investigations is whether this adaptability during infancy and early childhood is achieved through the development of different perceptual norms for faces of different ages or whether the properties of newly encountered face age groups are progressively incorporated within a single norm in children's face space. There is considerable evidence that adults maintain different norms for visually distinct categories of faces such as faces of different species, races, genders, and ages (e.g., Jaquet, Rhodes, & Hayward, 2007;Little, DeBruine, Jones, & Waitt, 2008;Rhodes et al, 2011). Although the current picture emerging from developmental studies is that children represent faces in a multidimensional face space that has some adult-like properties from at least 4 years of age (e.g., ; see review by , there is only one study with children suggesting that 8-year-olds, and possibly even 5-year-olds, maintain category-specific norms for faces of different races (Short et al, 2011).…”