scholarly journals How many faces do people know?

2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1888) ◽  
pp. 20181319 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Jenkins ◽  
A. J. Dowsett ◽  
A. M. Burton
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Identification Performance ◽  
Unfamiliar Faces

Over our species history, humans have typically lived in small groups of under a hundred individuals. However, our face recognition abilities appear to equip us to recognize very many individuals, perhaps thousands. Modern society provides access to huge numbers of faces, but no one has established how many faces people actually know. Here, we describe a method for estimating this number. By combining separate measures of recall and recognition, we show that people know about 5000 faces on average and that individual differences are large. Our findings offer a possible explanation for large variation in identification performance. They also provide constraints on understanding the qualitative differences between perception of familiar and unfamiliar faces—a distinction that underlies all current theories of face recognition.

Individual Differences Predict Eyewitness Identification Performance

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Andersen ◽  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Maria Carlson ◽  
Scott D. Gronlund
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Identification Performance

scholarly journals Configurational Factors in the Perception of Unfamiliar Faces

Perception ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham J Hole
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Face Inversion ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Unfamiliar Faces ◽  
The Way

Young et al (1987) have demonstrated that the juxtaposition of top and bottom halves of different faces produces a powerful impression of a novel face. It is difficult to isolate perceptually either half of the ‘new’ face. Inversion of the stimulus, however, makes this task easier. Upright chimeric faces appear to evoke strong and automatic configurational processing mechanisms which interfere with selective piecemeal processing. In this paper three experiments are described in which a matching paradigm was used to show that Young et al's findings apply to unfamiliar as well as to familiar faces. The results highlight the way in which minor procedural differences may alter the way in which subjects perform face-recognition tasks.

scholarly journals Orientation-invariance of individual differences in three face processing tasks

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 181350
Author(s):  
G. Meinhardt ◽  
B. Meinhardt-Injac ◽  
M. Persike
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Face Perception ◽  
Face Processing ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Common Variance ◽  
Strong Inversion ◽  
Orientation Invariance

Numerous studies have reported impairments in perception and recognition, and, particularly, in part-integration of faces following picture-plane inversion. Whether these findings support the notion that inversion changes face processing qualitatively remains a topic of debate. To examine whether associations and dissociations of the human face processing ability depend on stimulus orientation, we measured face recognition with the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT), along with experimental tests of face perception and selective attention to faces and non-face objects in a sample of 314 participants. Results showed strong inversion effects for all face-related tasks, and modest ones for non-face objects. Individual differences analysis revealed that the CFMT shared common variance with face perception and face-selective attention, however, independent of orientation. Regardless of whether predictor and criterion had same or different orientation, face recognition was best predicted by the same test battery. Principal component decomposition revealed a common factor for face recognition and face perception, a second common factor for face recognition and face-selective attention, and two unique factors. The patterns of factor loadings were nearly identical for upright and inverted presentation. These results indicate orientation-invariance of common variance in three domains of face processing. Since inversion impaired performance, but did not affect domain-related associations and dissociations, the findings suggest process-specific but orientation-general mechanisms. Specific limitations by constraints of individual differences analysis and test selection are discussed.

scholarly journals A Reciprocal Model of Face Recognition and Autistic Traits: Evidence from an Individual Differences Perspective

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e94013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew W. R. Halliday ◽  
Stuart W. S. MacDonald ◽  
Suzanne K. Sherf ◽  
James W. Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Autistic Traits

Self- or familiar-face recognition advantage? New insight using ambient images

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 1396-1404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Bortolon ◽  
Siméon Lorieux ◽  
Stéphane Raffard
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Familiarity Effect ◽  
Familiar Face ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Face ◽  
First Time ◽  
Unfamiliar Faces

Self-face recognition has been widely explored in the past few years. Nevertheless, the current literature relies on the use of standardized photographs which do not represent daily-life face recognition. Therefore, we aim for the first time to evaluate self-face processing in healthy individuals using natural/ambient images which contain variations in the environment and in the face itself. In total, 40 undergraduate and graduate students performed a forced delayed-matching task, including images of one’s own face, friend, famous and unknown individuals. For both reaction time and accuracy, results showed that participants were faster and more accurate when matching different images of their own face compared to both famous and unfamiliar faces. Nevertheless, no significant differences were found between self-face and friend-face and between friend-face and famous-face. They were also faster and more accurate when matching friend and famous faces compared to unfamiliar faces. Our results suggest that faster and more accurate responses to self-face might be better explained by a familiarity effect – that is, (1) the result of frequent exposition to one’s own image through mirror and photos, (2) a more robust mental representation of one’s own face and (3) strong face recognition units as for other familiar faces.

scholarly journals Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition in crested macaques ( Macaca nigra )

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 150109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme Micheletta ◽  
Jamie Whitehouse ◽  
Lisa A. Parr ◽  
Paul Marshman ◽  
Antje Engelhardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Novel Species ◽  
Primate Species ◽  
Pictorial Representation ◽  
Facial Features ◽  
Dominance Hierarchies ◽  
Macaca Nigra ◽  
Unfamiliar Face ◽  
Unfamiliar Faces

Many species use facial features to identify conspecifics, which is necessary to navigate a complex social environment. The fundamental mechanisms underlying face processing are starting to be well understood in a variety of primate species. However, most studies focus on a limited subset of species tested with unfamiliar faces. As well as limiting our understanding of how widely distributed across species these skills are, this also limits our understanding of how primates process faces of individuals they know, and whether social factors (e.g. dominance and social bonds) influence how readily they recognize others. In this study, socially housed crested macaques voluntarily participated in a series of computerized matching-to-sample tasks investigating their ability to discriminate (i) unfamiliar individuals and (ii) members of their own social group. The macaques performed above chance on all tasks. Familiar faces were not easier to discriminate than unfamiliar faces. However, the subjects were better at discriminating higher ranking familiar individuals, but not unfamiliar ones. This suggests that our subjects applied their knowledge of their dominance hierarchies to the pictorial representation of their group mates. Faces of high-ranking individuals garner more social attention, and therefore might be more deeply encoded than other individuals. Our results extend the study of face recognition to a novel species, and consequently provide valuable data for future comparative studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document