Literature DB >> 26195852

Artificial faces are harder to remember.

Benjamin Balas1, Jonathan Pacella1.   

Abstract

Observers interact with artificial faces in a range of different settings and in many cases must remember and identify computer-generated faces. In general, however, most adults have heavily biased experience favoring real faces over synthetic faces. It is well known that face recognition abilities are affected by experience such that faces belonging to "out-groups" defined by race or age are more poorly remembered and harder to discriminate from one another than faces belonging to the "in-group." Here, we examine the extent to which artificial faces form an "out-group" in this sense when other perceptual categories are matched. We rendered synthetic faces using photographs of real human faces and compared performance in a memory task and a discrimination task across real and artificial versions of the same faces. We found that real faces were easier to remember, but only slightly more discriminable than artificial faces. Artificial faces were also equally susceptible to the well-known face inversion effect, suggesting that while these patterns are still processed by the human visual system in a face-like manner, artificial appearance does compromise the efficiency of face processing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial faces; face memory; face recognition

Year:  2015        PMID: 26195852      PMCID: PMC4505187          DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Human Behav        ISSN: 0747-5632


  37 in total

1.  The N170 occipito-temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face-specific processes in the human brain.

Authors:  B Rossion; I Gauthier; M J Tarr; P Despland; R Bruyer; S Linotte; M Crommelinck
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2000-01-17       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  Ethnic out-group faces are biased in the prejudiced mind.

Authors:  Ron Dotsch; Daniël H J Wigboldus; Oliver Langner; Ad van Knippenberg
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-10

Review 3.  Perception and motivation in face recognition: a critical review of theories of the Cross-Race Effect.

Authors:  Steven G Young; Kurt Hugenberg; Michael J Bernstein; Donald F Sacco
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-08-30

4.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

5.  You can take the eyes out of the doll, but....

Authors:  Benjamin Balas; Joseph Horski
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.490

6.  Face animacy is not all in the eyes: evidence from contrast chimeras.

Authors:  Benjamin Balas; Christopher Tonsager
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Race is gendered: how covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization.

Authors:  Kerri L Johnson; Jonathan B Freeman; Kristin Pauker
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2011-08-29

8.  Early visual ERP sensitivity to the species and animacy of faces.

Authors:  Benjamin Balas; Kami Koldewyn
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  The role of face shape and pigmentation in other-race face perception: an electrophysiological study.

Authors:  Benjamin Balas; Charles A Nelson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Chimpanzee faces are 'special' to humans.

Authors:  Jessica Taubert
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.490

View more
  14 in total

1.  Broadening the stimulus set: Introducing the American Multiracial Faces Database.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Chen; Jasmine B Norman; Yeseul Nam
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-02

2.  A systematic survey of face stimuli used in psychological research 2000-2020.

Authors:  Amy Dawel; Elizabeth J Miller; Annabel Horsburgh; Patrice Ford
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-11-03

3.  Corneal reflections and skin contrast yield better memory of human and virtual faces.

Authors:  Julija Vaitonytė; Maryam Alimardani; Max M Louwerse
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-10-18

4.  The Impact of Face Inversion on Animacy Categorization.

Authors:  Benjamin Balas; Amanda E van Lamsweerde; Amanda Auen; Alyson Saville
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2017-08-11

5.  Differential effects of face-realism and emotion on event-related brain potentials and their implications for the uncanny valley theory.

Authors:  Sebastian Schindler; Eduard Zell; Mario Botsch; Johanna Kissler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  About Face: Matching Unfamiliar Faces Across Rotations of View and Lighting.

Authors:  Simone Favelle; Harold Hill; Peter Claes
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2017-11-29

7.  Those Virtual People all Look the Same to me: Computer-Rendered Faces Elicit a Higher False Alarm Rate Than Real Human Faces in a Recognition Memory Task.

Authors:  Jari Kätsyri
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-08-03

8.  Modulation of face- and emotion-selective ERPs by the three most common types of face image manipulations.

Authors:  Sebastian Schindler; Maximilian Bruchmann; Florian Bublatzky; Thomas Straube
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  An event-related potential comparison of facial expression processing between cartoon and real faces.

Authors:  Jiayin Zhao; Qi Meng; Licong An; Yifang Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  How Well Do Computer-Generated Faces Tap Face Expertise?

Authors:  Kate Crookes; Louise Ewing; Ju-Dith Gildenhuys; Nadine Kloth; William G Hayward; Matt Oxner; Stephen Pond; Gillian Rhodes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.