Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 865–876 | Cite as

Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task

  • Ahmed M. Megreya
  • A. Mike BurtonEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is difficult to match two images of the same unfamiliar face, even under good conditions. Here, we show that there are large individual differences on unfamiliar face matching. Initially, we tried to predict these using tests of visual short-term memory, cognitive style, and perceptual speed. Moderate correlations were produced by various components of these tests. In three other experiments, we found very strong correlations between face matching and inverted face matching on the same test. Finally, we examined potential associations between familiar and unfamiliar face processing. Strong correlations were found between familiar and unfamiliar face processing, but only when the familiar faces were inverted. We conclude that unfamiliar faces are processed for identity in a qualitatively different way than are familiar faces.

Keywords

Face Recognition Face Processing Target Face Perceptual Speed Face Match 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander, G. E., Mentis, M. J., Van Horn, J. D., Grady, C. L., Berman, K. F., Furey, M. L., et al. (1999). Individual differences in PET activation of object perception and attention systems predict face matching accuracy.NeuroReport,10, 1965–1971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett, J. C., &Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces.Cognitive Psychology,25, 281–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruce, V. (1986). Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces.Perception,15, 387–397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., &Dench, N. (1994). What’s distinctive about a distinctive face?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 119–141.Google Scholar
  5. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J.B., Burton, A. M., &Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,5, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Hancock, P. J. B. (1999). From pixels to people: A model of familiar face recognition.Cognitive Science,23, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., &Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance.Psychological Science,10, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtois, M. R., &Mueller, J. H. (1981). Target and distractor typicality in facial recognition.Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Gelder, B., &Rouw, R. (2000). Paradoxical configuration effects for faces and objects in prosopagnosia.Neuropsychologia,38, 1271–1279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., &Harman, H. H. (1979). Cognitive factors: Their identification and replication.Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs,79, 3–84.Google Scholar
  13. Enns, J. T., &Shore, D. I. (1997). Separate influences of orientation and lighting in the inverted-face effect.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., &Tanaka, J. R. (1995). The inverted faces inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms.Vision Research,35, 2089–2093.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Flin, R. H. (1985). Development of face recognition: An encoding switch?British Journal of Psychology,76, 123–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Freire, A., Lee, K., &Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence.Perception,29, 159–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 330–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Haxby, J. V., Ungerleider, L. G., Clark, V. P., Schouten, J. L., Hoffman, E. A., &Martin, A. (1999). The effects of face inversion on activity in human neural system for face and object perception.Neuron,22, 189–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson, Z., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching the faces of robbers captured on video.Applied Cognitive Psychology,15, 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children.Child Development,36, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemp, R., Towell, N., &Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud.Applied Cognitive Psychology,11, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klatzky, R. L., &Forrest, F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavrakas, P. J., Buri, J. R., &Mayzner, M. S. (1976). A perspective on the recognition of other-race faces.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, M. B., &Johnston, R. A. (1997). Familiarity, target set, and false positives in face recognition.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,9, 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu, C. H., Seetzen, H., Burton, A. M., &Chaudhuri, A. (2003). Face recognition is robust with incongruent image resolution: Relationship to security video images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,9, 33–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Malone, D. R., Morris, H. H., Kay, M. C., &Levin, H. S. (1982). Prosopagnosia: A double dissociation between the recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry,45, 820–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Messick, S., &Damarin, F. (1964). Cognitive styles and memory for faces.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,69, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63, 81–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., &Behrmann, M. (1997). What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,9, 555–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mueller, J. H., Bailis, K. L., &Goldstein, A. G. (1979). Depth of processing and anxiety in facial recognition.British Journal of Psychology,70, 511–515.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowicki, S., Winograd, E., &Millard, B. A. (1979). Memory for faces: A social learning analysis.Journal of Research in Personality,13, 460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose, S. A., &Feldman, J. F. (1995). Prediction of IQ and specific cognitive abilities at 11 years from infancy measures.Developmental Psychology,31, 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., &Jankowski, J. J. (2003). Infant visual recognition memory: Independent contributions of speed and attention.Developmental Psychology,39, 563–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. S., &Schooler, J. W. (1998). Whom do words hurt? Individual differences in susceptibility to verbal overshadowing.Applied Cognitive Psychology,12, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schretlen, D. J., Pearlson, G. D., Anthony, J. C., &Yates, K. O. (2001). Determinants of Benton Facial Recognition Test performance in normal adults.Neuropsychology,15, 405–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., Gold, J. M., &Bennett, P. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing.Current Biology,14, 391–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,75, 221–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanaka, J. W., &Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,79, 471–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., &Karp, S. A. (1974).Psychological differentiation: Studies of development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Woodhead, M. M., &Baddeley, A. D. (1981). Individual differences and memory for faces, pictures, and words.Memory & Cognition,9, 368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, A. W., Hay, D. C., McWeeny, K. H., Flude, B. M., &Ellis, A. W. (1985). Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features.Perception,14, 737–746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Young, A. W., Newcombe, F., de Haan, E. H. F., Small, M., &Hay, D. C. (1993). Face perception after brain injury: Selective impairments affecting identity and expression.Brain,116, 941–959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations