Memory for lateral asymmetries in well-known faces: Evidence for configural information in memory representations of Faces

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out to determine whether configural information about the left-right organization of a face is represented in memory. In Experiment 1, subjects consistently chose normal (correct) photographs as better likenesses of familiar faces than mirror-reversed photographs. This effect was stronger for more familiar faces, and did not depend on the presence of asymmetric hairstyles or single, asymmetrically located features (e.g., moles, warts). In Experiment 2, subjects were asked to decide which ofthe left and right composite faces was a better likeness of the person. The left composite is normally considered a better likeness in perceptual matching tasks where the normal photograph is present. Left composites were regarded as better likenesses than right composites, despite the fact that this bias appeared to compete with one in favor of the more realistic of the two composites. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that configural information about the left-right organization of faces is represented in memory. The right hemiface of a familiarface was considered more expressive than the left hemiface. This is opposite to the normal result for unfamiliar faces. The implications of the results for models of face representations and for future research directions are discussed.Despite the similarity of faces as visual patterns, we are able to discriminate between and remember many faces for long periods of time (Bahrick, Bahrick, & Wittlinger, 1975). Bahrick et al. showed that people could recognize pictures of classmates at a 90% correct performance level, independent of class size, for up to 35 years after graduation. Our ability to remember faces, often over an extended period of time, may be essentially unlimited under natural conditions of learning with repeated, long duration exposures to a face. Even a single, brief exposure may be sufficient to encode a face in memory. Faces signal identity and emotional state, both of which are important predictors of behavior. Therefore, there has probably been strong selection pressure for the ability to encode faces quickly and to remember them for long periods of time.Our capacity for encoding and remembering faces is not yet understood, and theories of facial representation are not well developed. Past research has emphasized the importance of individual features, such as the eyes, nose, and mouth, for discriminating between and remembering faces. Changing these features impairs discrimination and recognition performance (for a comprehensive review,

My face through the looking-glass: The effect of mirror reversal on reflection size estimation

“…This effect of mirror reversal is compatible with the higher visual familiarity with the mirror-reversed face and previous studies showing that the frequent use of mirrors in everyday life increases familiarity with one's mirror reversed face as compared to non-reversed pictures of one's own face (Mita et al, 1977;Rhodes, 1986). In addition to this higher familiarity, we further suggest that left-right reversal of one's own face may also decrease the tendency to perceive planar projections in mirrors as 3D objects and allows to better access the projected size rather than physical size of one's own face.…”

“…Behavioral evidence has shown that left-right reversal differentially influences the perceived familiarity of one's own face and that of another person's face (Brady, Campbell, & Flaherty, 2005;Brédart, 2003;Mita et al, 1977;Rhodes, 1986). Whereas mirror reversed self faces are perceived as more familiar than non mirror-reversed ones, the opposite is true for other (familiar) persons' faces.…”

“…These findings show that the magnitude of the size overestimation bias of mirror reflections decreases after mirror image interactions (Lawson & Bertamini, 2006), but also that the effect of mirror-reversal is not abolished by this interaction and likely arises due to different mechanisms. The role of mirror-reversal for highly familiar faces has previously been addressed (Brady, Campbell, & Flaherty, 2004;Brady et al, 2005;Brédart, 2003;Mita et al, 1977;Rhodes, 1986;Smith, Grabowecky, & Suzuki, 2008) in explicit tasks requiring face recognition, judgments of orientation and judgments of ''likeliness'' of mirror reversed versus normally oriented faces. These studies, however, remained at the explicit level and only studied a limited number of trials.…”

“…This is not a trivial point: besides the fact that numerous thinkers have pondered on the origin and nature of this peculiarity of mirrors (e.g. Gregory, 1997;Navon, 1987;Takano & Tanaka, 2007), studies have shown that people perceive their mirror-reversed face as more familiar than their ''normally oriented'' face, and conversely for the face of a familiar person (Mita, Dermer, & Knight, 1977;Rhodes, 1986). This was further confirmed by studies showing that humans are better at detecting asymmetrically located features for their own face, while such features are less important when judging the orientation of the face of a familiar other person (Brédart, 2003).…”

On the Legibility of Mirror-Reflected and Rotated Text

“…When examining their own reflections in mirrors, observers tend describe them as identical instead of reversed or opposite, suggesting an important role for an exocentric (as opposed to egocentric) frame of reference [179]. Familiarity with certain frames of reference over others may account for why the recognition of one's own face is better when it is shown mirrored, while the faces of others are better recognized when shown in the manner in which we are used to seeing them (i.e., not mirrored) [188][189][190][191][192]. In general, however, naïve understanding of how reflections work and appear is quite poor [193][194][195][196][197].…”