It is conventionally assumed that many faces are relatively typical and few are distinctive (e.g. Valentine, 1991), producing a highly skewed distribution. However, Burton and Vokey (1998) argue that the distribution will be normal, and our review of previous research suggested this is true. In three studies we explored the distributions using different techniques to estimate distinctiveness. Both traditional ratings and pairwise selection produced normal distributions. However, ratings emphasizing the degree of deviation from a typical face were skewed towards the distinctive end of the scale. The instructions given when distinctiveness is rated may not necessarily oppose typicality with distinctiveness: a face that is relatively typical might also stand out in a crowd because of some particular feature, familiarity or a host of other reasons. In our fourth study, recognition memory was predicted by all of the distinctiveness measures, with the relationship being stronger after a 5-week delay than in the immediate test.

Verbal overshadowing is the phenomenon that verbally describing a face between presentation and test can impair identification of the face (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). This study examined the effects of articulatory suppression and distinctiveness upon the magnitude of the verbal overshadowing effect. Participants engaged in articulatory suppression or a control task whilst viewing a target face. They then either described the face or completed a distractor task before selecting the target face from a line-up. This was repeated for 12 trials. Articulatory suppression impaired identification performance overall, and reduced the negative effects of description to nonsignificance, whereas the control group demonstrated the standard verbal overshadowing effect. Typical faces showed verbal overshadowing, whereas distinctive faces did not. These results are consistent with the view that verbal overshadowing arises because the description of the target face creates a verbal code that interferes with a verbal code created spontaneously during encoding.

It is easier to identify a degraded familiar face when it is shown moving (smiling, talking; nonrigid motion), than when it is displayed as a static image (Knight & Johnston, 1997; Lander, Christie, & Bruce, 1999). Here we explore the theoretical underpinnings of the moving face recognition advantage. In Experiment 1 we show that the identification of personally familiar faces when shown naturally smiling is significantly better than when the person is shown artificially smiling (morphed motion), as a single static neutral image or as a single static smiling image. In Experiment 2 we demonstrate that speeding up the motion significantly impairs the recognition of identity from natural smiles, but has little effect on morphed smiles. We conclude that the recognition advantage for face motion does not reflect a general benefit for motion, but suggests that, for familiar faces, information about their characteristic motion is stored in memory.

No abstract

Verbal overshadowing reflects the impairment in memory performance following verbalization of nonverbal stimuli. However, it is not clear whether the same mechanisms are responsible for verbal overshadowing effects observed with different stimuli and task demands. In the present article, we propose a multi-process view that reconciles the main theoretical explanations of verbal overshadowing deriving from the use of different paradigms. Within a single paradigm, we manipulated both the nature of verbalization at encoding (nameability of the stimuli) and post-encoding (verbal descriptions), as well as the nature (image transformation or recognition) and by implication the demands of the final memory task (global or featural). Results from three experiments replicated the negative effects of encoding and post-encoding verbalization in imagery and recognition tasks, respectively. However, they also showed that the demands of the final memory task can modulate or even reverse verbal overshadowing effects due to both post-encoding verbalization and naming during encoding.