Recognition of unfamiliar faces is difficult in part due to variations in expressions, angles, and image quality. Studies suggest shape and surface properties play varied roles in face learning, and identification of unfamiliar faces uses diagnostic pigmentation/surface reflectance relative to shape information. Here, participants sorted photo-cards of unfamiliar faces by identity, which were shown in their original, stretched, and contrast-negated forms, to examine the utility of diagnostic shape and surface properties in sorting unfamiliar faces by identity. In four experiments, we varied the presentation order of conditions (contrast-negated first or original first with stretched second across experiments) and whether the same or different photo-cards were seen across conditions. Stretching the images did not impair performance in any measures relative to other conditions. Contrast negation generally exacerbated poor sorting by identity compared with the other conditions. However, seeing the contrast-negated photo-cards last mitigated some of the effects of contrast negation. Together, results suggest an important role for surface properties such as pigmentation and reflectance for sorting by identity and add to literatures on informational content and appearance variability in discrimination of facial identity.
AndrewsS.JenkinsR.CursiterH.BurtonA. M. (2015).
Telling faces together: Learning new faces through exposure to multiple instances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
68, 2041–2050. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.1003949
2.
BalasB.GableJ.PearsonH. (2019).
The effects of blur and inversion on the recognition of ambient face images. Perception,
48, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006618812581
BruceV.HendersonZ.NewmanC.BurtonA. M. (2001).
Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
7, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207
5.
BurtonA. M. (2013).
Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
66, 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800125
6.
BurtonA. M.JenkinsR. (2011). Unfamiliar face perception. In CalderA. J.RhodesG.J. V.HaxbyJohnsonM. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp. 287–306).
Oxford University Press.
BurtonA. M.KramerR. S. S.RitchieK. L.JenkinsR. (2016).
Identity from variation: Representations of faces derived from multiple instances. Cognitive Science,
40, 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12231
9.
BurtonA. M.WhiteD.McNeillA. (2010).
The Glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods,
42, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.286
10.
CalderA. J.BurtonA. M.MillerP.YoungA. W.AkamatsuS. (2001).
A principal components analysis of facial expression. Vision Research,
41, 1179–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00002-5
11.
DowsettA. J.SandfordA.BurtonA. M. (2016).
Face learning with multiple images leads to fast acquisition of familiarity for specific individuals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1017513
12.
GiladS.MengM.SinhaP. (2009).
Role of ordinal contrast relationships in face encoding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106, 5353–5358. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812396106
13.
HancockP. J. B.BruceV.BruceA. M. (2000).
Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
4, 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9
14.
HancockP. J. B.BurtonA. M.BruceV. (1996).
Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis. Memory & Cognition,
24, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197270
15.
HendersonZ.BruceV.BurtonA. M. (2001).
Matching the faces of robbers captured on video. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
15, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.718
16.
HoleG. J.GeorgeP. A.EavesK.RasekA. (2002).
Effects of geometric distortions on face-recognition performance. Perception,
31, 1221–1240. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3252
17.
ItzM. L.GolleJ.LuttmannS.SchweinbergerS. R.KaufmannJ. M. (2017).
Dominance of texture over shape in facial identity processing is modulated by individual abilities. British Journal of Psychology,
108, 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12199.
18.
ItzM. L.SchweinbergerS. R.KaufmannJ. M. (2016).
Effects of caricaturing in shape or color on familiarity decisions for familiar and unfamiliar faces. PLoS One,
11, e0149796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149796
19.
JenkinsR.BurtonA. M. (2011).
Stable face representations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
366, 1671–1683. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0379
KaufmannJ. M.SchweinbergerS. R. (2008).
Distortions in the brain? ERP effects of caricaturing familiar and unfamiliar faces. Brain Research,
1228, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.092
24.
KempR.McManusC.PiggotT. (1990).
Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception,
19, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1068/p190531
25.
KempR.TowellN.PikeG. (1997).
When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
11, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O
26.
KempR. I.PikeG.WhiteP.MusselmanA. (1996).
Perception and recognition of normal and negative faces: The role of shape from shading and pigmentation cues. Perception,
25, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1068/p250037
27.
KramerR. S. S.JenkinsR.YoungA. W.BurtonA. M. (2017).
Natural variability is essential to learning new faces. Visual Cognition,
25, 470–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1242522
28.
KramerR. S. S.ManesiZ.TowlerA.ReynoldsM. G.BurtonA. M. (2018).
Familiarity and within-person variability: The importance of the internal and external features. Perception,
47, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617725242
MatthewsC. M.MondlochC. J. (2018).
Finding an unfamiliar face in a line-up: Viewing multiple images of the target is beneficial on target-present trials but costly on target-absent trials. British Journal of Psychology,
109, 758–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12301
31.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002).
The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
32.
MegreyaA. M.BurtonA. M. (2006).
Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition,
34, 865–876. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433
33.
MegreyaA. M.BurtonA. M. (2007).
Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,
69, 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193954
34.
MegreyaA. M.BurtonA. M. (2008).
Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
14, 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013464
35.
MenonN.WhiteD.KempR. I. (2015).
Variation in photos of the same face drives improvements in identity verification. Perception,
44, 1332–1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615599902
36.
PapeshM. H. (2018).
Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications,
3, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0110-y
37.
Ritchie, K. L., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Learning faces from variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 897–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136656
38.
RussellR.SinhaP. (2007).
Real-world face recognition: The importance of surface reflectance properties. Perception,
36, 1368–1374. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5779
39.
RussellR.SinhaP.BiedermanI.NederhouserM. (2006).
Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception,
35, 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5490
40.
SandfordA.BurtonA. M. (2014).
Tolerance for distorted faces: Challenges to a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Cognition,
132, 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.005
41.
SandfordA.RegoS. (2019).
Recognition of deformed familiar faces: Contrast negation and nonglobal stretching. Perception,
48, 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619872059
42.
SandfordA.SarkerT.BernierT. (2018).
Effects of geometric distortions, Gaussian blur, and contrast negation on recognition of familiar faces. Visual Cognition,
26, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1407853
43.
SormazM.AndrewsT. J.YoungA. W. (2013).
Contrast negation and the importance of the eye region for holistic representations of facial identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
39, 1667–1677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032449
44.
StacchiL.Huguenin-ElieE.CaldaraR.RamonM. (2020).
Normative data for two challenging tests of face matching under ecological conditions. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications,
5, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0205-0
45.
Taschereau-DumouchelV.RossionB.SchynsP. G.GosselinF. (2010).
Interattribute distances do not represent the identity of real-world faces. Frontiers in Psychology,
1, 159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00159
46.
WhiteD.BurtonA. M.JenkinsR.KempR. I. (2014).
Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
20, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000009
ZhouX.MondlochC. J. (2016).
Recognizing “Bella Swan” and “Hermione Granger”: No own-race advantage in recognizing photos of famous faces. Perception,
45, 1426–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006616662046
