Skip to main content

Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task

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.

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, J. C., &Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces.Cognitive Psychology,25, 281–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, V. (1986). Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces.Perception,15, 387–397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtois, M. R., &Mueller, J. H. (1981). Target and distractor typicality in facial recognition.Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 639–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Gelder, B., &Rouw, R. (2000). Paradoxical configuration effects for faces and objects in prosopagnosia.Neuropsychologia,38, 1271–1279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Enns, J. T., &Shore, D. I. (1997). Separate influences of orientation and lighting in the inverted-face effect.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flin, R. H. (1985). Development of face recognition: An encoding switch?British Journal of Psychology,76, 123–134.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 330–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., &Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis.Memory & Cognition,24, 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Z., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching the faces of robbers captured on video.Applied Cognitive Psychology,15, 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children.Child Development,36, 609–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Towell, N., &Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud.Applied Cognitive Psychology,11, 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, R. L., &Forrest, F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavrakas, P. J., Buri, J. R., &Mayzner, M. S. (1976). A perspective on the recognition of other-race faces.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 475–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. B., &Johnston, R. A. (1997). Familiarity, target set, and false positives in face recognition.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,9, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S., &Damarin, F. (1964). Cognitive styles and memory for faces.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,69, 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki, S., Winograd, E., &Millard, B. A. (1979). Memory for faces: A social learning analysis.Journal of Research in Personality,13, 460–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. S., &Schooler, J. W. (1998). Whom do words hurt? Individual differences in susceptibility to verbal overshadowing.Applied Cognitive Psychology,12, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,75, 221–242.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J. W., &Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 583–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,79, 471–491.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Woodhead, M. M., &Baddeley, A. D. (1981). Individual differences and memory for faces, pictures, and words.Memory & Cognition,9, 368–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Mike Burton.

Additional information

Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Megreya, A.M., Burton, A.M. Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition 34, 865–876 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433

Keywords

  • Face Recognition
  • Face Processing
  • Target Face
  • Perceptual Speed
  • Face Match