Memory & Cognition

, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp 1966–1976 | Cite as

Adaptation effects of highly familiar faces: Immediate and long lasting

  • Claus-Christian Carbon
  • Tilo Strobach
  • Stephen R. H. Langton
  • Géza Harsányi
  • Helmut Leder
  • Gyula Kovács


A central problem of face identification is forming stable representations from entities that vary—both in a rigid and nonrigid manner—over time, under different viewing conditions, and with altering appearances. Three experiments investigated the underlying mechanism that is more flexible than has often been supposed. The experiments used highly familiar faces that were first inspected as configurally manipulated versions. When participants had to select the veridical version (known from TV/media/movies) out of a series of gradually altered versions, their selections were biased toward the previously inspected manipulated versions. This adaptation effect (face identity aftereffect, Leopold, Rhodes, Müller, & Jeffery, 2005) was demonstrated even for a delay of 24h between inspection and test phase. Moreover, the inspection of a specific image version of a famous person not only changed the veridicality decision of the same image, but also transferred to other images of this person as well. Thus, this adaptation effect is apparently not based on simple pictorial grounds, but appears to have a rather structural basis. Importantly, as indicated by Experiment 3, the adaptation effect was not based on a simple averaging mechanism or an episodic memory effect, but on identity-specific information.


  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1998).Human memory: Theory and practice (rev. ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, P. J., &Perrett, D. I. (1993). Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars.Perception,22, 257–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson, P. J., &Perrett, D. I. (1994). Visual processing of facial distinctiveness.Perception,23, 75–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bower, G. H., Thompson-Schill, S., &Tulving, E. (1994). Reducing retroactive interference: An interference analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, V. (1994). Stability from variation: The case of face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 5–28.Google Scholar
  6. Bruce, V., Doyle, T., Dench, N., &Burton, M. (1991). Remembering facial configurations.Cognition,38, 109–144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., &Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,7, 207–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce, V., &Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carbon, C.-C., &Leder, H. (2005a). Face adaptation: Changing stable representations of familiar faces within minutes?Advances in Cognitive Psychology,1, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carbon, C.-C., &Leder, H. (2005b). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces.Perception,34, 1117–1134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carbon, C.-C., &Leder, H. (2006a). The Mona Lisa effect: Is “our” Lisa fame or fake?Perception,35, 411–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carbon, C.-C., &Leder, H. (2006b). When faces are heads: Viewdependent recognition of faces altered relationally or componentially.Swiss Journal of Psychology,65, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collishaw, S. M., &Hole, G. J. (2000). Featural and configurational processes in the recognition of faces of different familiarity.Perception,29, 893–909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. DiGirolamo, G. J., &Hintzman, D. L. (1997). First impressions are lasting impressions: A primacy effect in memory for repetitions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drosopoulos, S., Wagner, U., &Born, J. (2005). Sleep enhances explicit recollection in recognition memory.Learning & Memory,12, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duarte, A., Ranganath, C., Winward, L., Hayward, D., &Knight, R. T. (2004). Dissociable neural correlates for familiarity and recollection during the encoding and retrieval of pictures.Cognitive Brain Research,18, 255–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Faulkner, T. F., Rhodes, G., Palermo, R., Pellicano, E., &Ferguson, D. (2002). Recognizing the un-real McCoy: Priming and the modularity of face recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein, A. G., &Chance, J. E. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory.Journal of Psychology,105, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hreczko, T. A., &Farkas, L. G. (1994). Norms of the craniofacial asymmetries in North American Caucasians. In L. G. Farkas (Ed.),Anthropometry of the head and face (2nd ed., pp. 359–380). New York: Raven.Google Scholar
  21. Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P., &Yonelinas, A. P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Köhler, W., &Wallach, H. (1944). Figural aftereffects: An investigation of visual processes.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,88, 269–357.Google Scholar
  23. Leder, H., &Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leder, H., &Carbon, C.-C. (2005). When context hinders! Learn-test compatibility in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 235–250.Google Scholar
  25. Leder, H., &Carbon, C.-C. (2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information.British Journal of Psychology,97, 19–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, K., Byatt, G., &Rhodes, G. (2000). Caricature effects, distinctiveness, and identification: Testing the face-space framework.Psychological Science,11, 379–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Leopold, D. A., O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., &Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects.Nature Neuroscience,4, 89–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leopold, D. A., Rhodes, G., Müller, K.-M., &Jeffery, L. (2005). The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B,272, 897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, J. K., Westerman, D. L., &Lloyd, M. E. (2004). Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions.Memory & Cognition,32, 1305–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mondloch, C. J., Le Grand, R., &Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing.Perception,31, 553–566.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rajaram, S., &Geraci, L. (2000). Conceptual fluency selectively influences knowing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1070–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Jaquet, E., Winkler, C., &Clifford, C. W. (2004). Orientation-contingent face aftereffects and implications for face-coding mechanisms.Current Biology,14, 2119–2123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossion, B., Schiltz, C., Robaye, L., Pirenne, D., &Crommelinck, M. (2001). How does the brain discriminate familiar and unfamiliar faces? A PET study of face categorical perception.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,13, 1019–1034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwaninger, A., Carbon, C.-C., &Leder, H. (2003). Expert face processing: Specialization and constraints. In G. Schwarzer & H. Leder (Eds.),The development of face processing (pp. 81–97). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  36. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?American Psychologist,40, 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986a). The effects of distinctiveness in recognising and classifying faces.Perception,15, 525–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986b). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 300–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Webster, M. A., Kaping, D., Mizokami, Y., &Duhamel, P. (2004). Adaptation to natural facial categories.Nature,428, 557–561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Webster, M. A., &MacLin, O. H. (1999). Figural aftereffects in the perception of faces.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westerman, D. L., Lloyd, M. E., &Miller, J. K. (2002). The attribution of perceptual fluency in recognition memory: The role of expectation.Journal of Memory & Language,47, 607–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus-Christian Carbon
    • 1
  • Tilo Strobach
    • 2
  • Stephen R. H. Langton
    • 3
  • Géza Harsányi
    • 2
  • Helmut Leder
    • 1
  • Gyula Kovács
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Humboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.University of StirlingStirlingScotland
  4. 4.University of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  5. 5.Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations