How does nominal identity emerge from featural information in a face-matching task with unfamiliar faces? The present study extends the classic same–different paradigm to the domain of unfamiliar face matching and proposes a hierarchical serial self-terminating model. The model assumes that similarity between images of faces can be assessed at three representational levels—featural, physical, and nominal—and that observers compare faces sequentially from lower to higher levels, guided by instructional set (physical vs. nominal) and terminating once a discriminating feature is found. Two experiments tested these predictions with upright (Experiment 1) and inverted (Experiment 2) faces. Upright faces showed key diagnostic effects consistent with the model: the absence of a fast-same effect, the presence of the name–physical disparity effect, and costs of nominal relative to physical instructions. Signal-detection analyses confirmed that these reflected changes in sensitivity rather than bias. In contrast, inversion disrupted this pattern, attenuating or reversing effects. The results provide strong but qualified support for a hierarchical account of face matching and highlight the boundary conditions of this architecture.
AmblerB. A.ProctorJ. D. (1976). The familiarity effect for single-letter pairs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 222–234.
2.
BamberD. (1969). Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimull. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 169–174.
3.
BamberD. (1972). Reaction times and error rates for judging nominal identity of letter strings. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 321–326.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
5.
BartlettM. L.CarragherD. J.HancockP. J.McCarleyJ. S. (2024). Benchmarking automation-aided performance in a forensic face matching task. Applied Ergonomics, 121, 104364.
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
Ben-DavidB. M.AlgomD. (2009). Species of redundancy in visual target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 958–976.
8.
BindemannM.AttardJ.LeachA.JohnstonR. A. (2013). The effect of image pixelation on unfamiliar-face matching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 707–717.
9.
BindemannM.BurtonA. M. (2021). Steps towards a cognitive theory of unfamiliar face matching. In BindemannM. (Ed.), Forensic face matching: Research and practice (pp. 38–61). Oxford University Press.
10.
BradshawJ. L.WallaceG. (1971). Models for the processing and identification of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 443–448.
11.
BruceV.YoungA. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305–327.
12.
BurtonA. M.BruceV.JohnstonR. A. (1990). Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. British Journal of Psychology, 81(3), 361–380.
13.
BurtonA. M.KramerR. S.RitchieK. L.JenkinsR. (2016). Identity from variation: Representations of faces derived from multiple instances. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 202–223.
14.
BurtonA. M.SchweinbergerS. R.JenkinsR.KaufmannJ. M. (2015). Arguments against a configural processing account of familiar face recognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 482–496.
15.
BurtonA. M.WhiteD.McNeillA. (2010). The Glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 286–291.
16.
ChengX. J.LittleD. R. (2025). Second-order facial features are processed analytically in composite faces. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 87(8), 2388–2416.
17.
ChengX. J.McCarthyC. J.WangT. S.PalmeriT. J.LittleD. R. (2018). Composite faces are not (necessarily) processed coactively: A test using systems factorial technology and logical-rule models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(6), 833–862.
18.
Davies-ThompsonJ.GouwsA.AndrewsT. J. (2009). An image-dependent representation of familiar and unfamiliar faces in the human ventral stream. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1627–1635.
19.
DehaeneS.AkhaveinR. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 314–326.
20.
DuncanE. M.McFarlandC. E. (1980). Isolating the effects of symbolic distance, and semantic congruity in comparative judgments: An additive-factors analysis. Memory & Cognition, 8, 612–622.
21.
EgethH.BleckerD. (1971). Differential effects of familiarity on judgments of sameness and difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 9(4), 321–326.
22.
EricksonW. B.BrownC.PortchE.LampinenJ. M.MarshJ. E.FodarellaC.PetkovicA.CoultasC.NewbyA.DateL.HancockP. J. B.FrowdC. D. (2024). The impact of weapons and unusual objects on the construction of facial composites. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(3), 207–228.
23.
EwbankM. P.AndrewsT. J. (2008). Differential sensitivity for viewpoint between familiar and unfamiliar faces in human visual cortex. Neuroimage, 40(4), 1857–1870.
24.
EwbankM. P.SmithW. A.HancockE. R.AndrewsT. J. (2008). The m170 reflects a viewpoint-dependent representation for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 364–370.
25.
FarahM. J.TanakaJ. W.DrainH. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 628–634.
26.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. D.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception?Psychological Review, 105(3), 482–498.
27.
FarellB. (1985). “same”–“different” judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 419–456.
28.
FifićM.TownsendJ. T. (2010). Information-processing alternatives to holistic perception: Identifying the mechanisms of secondary-level holism within a categorization paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1290–1313.
29.
FitousiD. (2015). Composite faces are not processed holistically: Evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(6), 2037–2060.
30.
FitousiD. (2020). Decomposing the composite face effect: Evidence for non-holistic processing based on the ex-Gaussian distribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(6), 819–840.
31.
FitousiD. (2021). When two faces are not better than one: Serial limited-capacity processing with redundant-target faces. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 3118–3134.
32.
FitousiD. (2024). A signal-detection based confidence-similarity model of face-matching. Psychological Review, 131, 625–663.
33.
FitousiD.RotschildN.PniniC.AziziO. (2021). Understanding the impact of face masks on the processing of facial identity, emotion, age, and gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 743793.
34.
FyshM. C.BindemannM. (2023). Understanding face matching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4), 862–880.
35.
GobbiniM. I.HaxbyJ. V. (2007). Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 32–41.
36.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). Simr: An r package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498.
37.
HancockP. J.BruceV.BurtonA. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 330–337.
38.
HardingB. (2018). A single process model of the same-different task [Unpublished doctoral dissertation,. Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa].
39.
HardingB.CousineauD. (2022). Is the fast-same phenomenon that fast? An investigation of identity priming in the same-different task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(4), 520–546.
40.
HaxbyJ. V.HoffmanE. A.GobbiniM. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(6), 223–233.
41.
JenkinsR.DowsettA.BurtonA. (2018). How many faces do people know?Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1888), 20181319.
42.
JenkinsR.WhiteD.Van MontfortX.BurtonA. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121(3), 313–323.
43.
JohnsonP. C.BarryS. J.FergusonH. M.MüllerP. (2015). Power analysis for generalized linear mixed models in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(2), 133–142.
44.
KeussP. (1977). Processing of geometrical dimensions in a binary classification task: Evidence for a dual process model. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 371–376.
45.
KramerR. S.JonesA.FitousiD. (2025). Face familiarity and similarity: Within- and between-identity representations are altered by learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception & Performance, 51(7), 927–943.
46.
KrollN. E. (1975). Visual short-term memory. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), Short-term memory (pp. 153–179). Academic Press.
47.
KruegerL. E. (1978). A theory of perceptual matching. Psychological Review, 85(4), 278–304.
48.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
49.
LenthR. (2016). Least-squares means: the r package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69, 1–33.
50.
LenthR. (2023). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8. 5.
51.
LukeS. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in r. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502.
52.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Psychology Press.
MegreyaA. M.BurtonA. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 865–876.
57.
MegreyaA. M.BurtonA. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(7), 1175–1184.
58.
MoyerR. S.LandauerT. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.
59.
NickersonR. S. (1965). Response times for “same”-“different” judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20(1), 15–18.
60.
PachellaG. R.MillerJ. (1976). Stimulus probability and same-different classification. Perception & Psychophysics, 19(1), 29–34.
61.
PosnerM. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
PosnerM. I.MitchellR. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74(5), 392–409.
63.
ProctorR. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching-task phenomena. Psychological Review, 88(4), 291–326.
64.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. https://www.R-project.org/
65.
RatcliffR. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108.
66.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532.
67.
RatcliffR.HackerM. J. (1981). Speed and accuracy of same and different responses in perceptual matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 30(3), 303–307.
68.
RezlescuC.SusiloT.WilmerJ. B.CaramazzaA. (2017). The inversion, part-whole, and composite effects reflect distinct perceptual mechanisms with varied relationships to face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1961.
69.
RichlerJ.PalmeriT. J.GauthierI. (2012). Meanings, mechanisms, and measures of holistic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 553.
70.
SearleS. R.SpeedF. M.MillikenG. A. (1980). Population marginal means in the linear model: an alternative to least squares means. The American Statistician, 34(4), 216–221.
71.
SekulerA. B.GasparC. M.GoldJ. M.BennettP. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing. Current Biology, 14(5), 391–396.
72.
SilvermanW. P.GoldbergS. L. (1975). Further confirmation of same vs. different processing differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 189–193.
73.
SporerS. L.MartschukN. (2014). The reliability of eyewitness identifications by the elderly: An evidence-based review. In TogliaM. P.RossD. F.PozzuloJ.PicaE. (Eds.), The elderly eyewitness in court (pp. 3–37).
74.
SternbergS. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153(3736), 652–654.
75.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30(0), 276–315.
76.
SternbergS. (1998). Inferring mental operations from reaction-time data: How we compare objects. In ScarboroughD.SternbergS. (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Methods, models, and conceptual issues (Vol. 4, pp. 365–445). Bradford.
77.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 225–245.
78.
TownsendJ. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like tweedledum and tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1(1), 46–54.
79.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge University Press.
80.
TownsendJ. T.NozawaG. (1997). Serial exhaustive models can violate the race model inequality: Implications for architecture and capacity. Psychological Review, 104(3), 595–602.
81.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J. (2004). The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 391–418.
82.
TverskyA.KrantzD. H. (1969). Similarity of schematic faces: A test of. Perception & Psychophysics, 5(2), 124–128.
83.
WalkerJ. A.CousineauD. (2019). Into the mind’s eye: Exploring the fast-same effect in the same-different task. The American Journal of Psychology, 132(4), 421–437.
84.
WegnerM. J.IngvalsonE. M. (2002). A decisional component of holistic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(5), 872–892.
85.
WengerM. J.TownsendJ. T. (2005). Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges. Psychology Press.
86.
WengerM. J.TownsendJ. T. (2006). On the costs and benefits of faces and words: Process characteristics of feature search in highly meaningful stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 755–779.
87.
WhiteD.KempR. I.JenkinsR.MathesonM.BurtonA. M. (2014). Passport officers’ errors in face matching. PLoS One, 9(8), e103510.
88.
WhiteD.WayneT.VarelaV. P. (2022). Partitioning natural face image variability emphasises within-identity over between-identity representation for understanding accurate recognition. Cognition, 219, 104966.
89.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145.
90.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
