Memory & Cognition

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 146–160 | Cite as

The perception of face gender: The role of stimulus structure in recognition and classification

  • Alice J. O’Toole
  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher
  • Dominique Valentin
  • Karen McKee
  • David Huff
  • Hervé Abdi
Article

Abstract

The perception of face gender was examined in the context of extending “face space” models of human face representations to include the perceptual categories defined by male and female faces. We collected data on the recognizability, gender classifiability (reaction time to classify a face as male/female), attractiveness, and masculinity/femininity of individual male and female faces. Factor analyses applied separately to the data for male and female faces yielded the following results. First, for both male and female faces, the recognizability and gender classifiability of faces were independent—a result inconsistent with the hypothesis that both recognizability and gender classifiability depend on a face’s “distance” from the subcategory gender prototype. Instead, caricatured aspects of gender (femininity/masculinity ratings) related to the gender classifiability of the faces. Second, facial attractiveness related inversely to face recognizability for male, but not for female, faces—a result that resolves inconsistencies in previous studies. Third, attractiveness and femininity for female faces were nearly equivalent, but attractiveness and masculinity for male faces were not equivalent. Finally, we applied principal component analysis to the pixel-coded face images with the aim of extracting measures related to the gender classifiability and recognizability of individual faces. We incorporated these model-derived measures into the factor analysis with the human rating and performance measures.

References

  1. Abdi, H. (1994). A neural network primer.Journal of Biological Systems,2, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Edelman, B., &O’Toole, A. J. (1995). More about the difference between men and women: Evidence from linear neural networks and the principal component approach.Perception,24, 539–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alley, T. R., &Cunningham, M. R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average.Psychological Science.2, 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, E., &Perrett, D. I. (1993). What gives a face its gender?Perception,22, 829–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., Dench, N., Hanna, E., Healey, P., Mason, O., Coombes, A., Fright, R., &Linney, A. (1993). Sex discrimination: How do we tell the difference between male and female faces?Perception,22, 131–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, V., Ellis, H., Gibling, F., &Young, A. (1987). Parallel processing of the gender and familiarity of faces.Canadian Journal of Psychology,41, 510–520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce, V., &Langton, S. (1994). The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces.Perception,23, 803–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Dench, N. (1993). What’s the difference between men and women? Evidence from facial measurement.Perception,22, 153–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chronicle, E. P., Chan, M., Hawkings, C., Mason, K., Smethurst, K., Stallybrass, K., Westrope, K., &Wright, K. (1995). You can tell by the nose—Judging sex from an isolated facial feature.Perception,24, 969–973.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cottrell, G. W., &Fleming, M. K. (1990). Face recognition using unsupervised feature extraction. InProceedings of the International Conference on Neural Networks (pp 322–325). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Enlow, D. (1982).Handbook of facial growth. Philadelphia: W. H. Saunders.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, A. G., &Chance, J. E. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory.Journal of Psychology,105, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golomb, B. A., Lawrence, D. T., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1991). SEXnet: A neural network identifies sex from human faces. In R. P. Lippmann, J. Moody, & D. S. Touretsky (Eds.),Advances in neural information processing systems 3 (pp 572–577). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, M. S., Lawrence, D. T., Golomb, B. A., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1995). A perceptron reveals the face of gender.Neural Computation,7, 1160–1164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., &Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis.Memory & Cognition,24, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kshirsagar, A. M. (1972).Multivariate analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  18. Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., &Mussleman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,5, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Mussleman, L., &Acton, S. (1991). A picture is worth a thousand words: A reply to “On the difficulty of averaging faces.”Psychological Science,2, 354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Light, L. L., Hollander, S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember.Personality & Social Psychology,7, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Memory & Learning,5, 212–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morton, J., &Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition.Psychological Review,98, 164–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Valentin, D. (1993). Low-dimensional representation of faces in higher dimensions of the face space.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,10, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Valentin, D. (1995). A perceptual learning theory of the information in faces. In T. Valentine (Ed.),Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition (pp 159–182). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect.Memory & Cognition,22, 208–224.Google Scholar
  28. O’Toole, A. J., Peterson, J., &Deffenbacher, K. A. (1996). An other-race effect for categorizing faces by sex.Perception,25, 669–676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., Troje, N. F., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1997). Sex classification is better with three-dimensional structure than with image intensity information.Perception,26, 75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pittenger, J. B. (1991). On the difficulty of averaging faces.Psychological Science,2, 351–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance.Perception,17, 43–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, T., &Bruce, V. (1988). Feature saliency in judging the sex and familiarity of faces.Perception,17, 475–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowland, D. A., &Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color.IEEE Transactions on Computer Graphics & Applications,15, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shepherd, J. W. (1981). Social factors in face recognition. In G. M. Davies, H. D. Ellis, & J. W. Shepherd (Eds.),Perceiving and remembering faces (pp 55–79). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shepherd, J. W., &Ellis, H. D. (1973). The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces.American Journal of Psychology,86, 627–633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sirovich, L., &Kirby, M. (1987). Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,3, 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snodgrass, J. G., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turk, M., &Pentland, A. (1991). Eigenfaces for recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valentin, D., Abdi, H., & O’Toole, A. J. (in press). Principal component and neural network analysis of face images: Explorations into the nature of information available for classifying faces by gender.Journal of Mathematical Psychology.Google Scholar
  41. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race on face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 161–204.Google Scholar
  42. Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 300–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yamaguchi, M. K., Hirukawa, T., &Kanazawa, S. (1995). Judgment of gender through facial parts.Perception,24, 563–575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice J. O’Toole
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher
    • 2
  • Dominique Valentin
    • 1
  • Karen McKee
    • 1
  • David Huff
    • 1
  • Hervé Abdi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Human Development, GR4.1University of Texas at DallasRichardson
  2. 2.University of NebraskaOmaha

Personalised recommendations