Robot faces elicit responses intermediate to human faces and objects at face-sensitive ERP components

Abstract

Face recognition is supported by selective neural mechanisms that are sensitive to various aspects of facial appearance. These include event-related potential (ERP) components like the P100 and the N170 which exhibit different patterns of selectivity for various aspects of facial appearance. Examining the boundary between faces and non-faces using these responses is one way to develop a more robust understanding of the representation of faces in extrastriate cortex and determine what critical properties an image must possess to be considered face-like. Robot faces are a particularly interesting stimulus class to examine because they can differ markedly from human faces in terms of shape, surface properties, and the configuration of facial features, but are also interpreted as social agents in a range of settings. In the current study, we thus chose to investigate how ERP responses to robot faces may differ from the response to human faces and non-face objects. In two experiments, we examined how the P100 and N170 responded to human faces, robot faces, and non-face objects (clocks). In Experiment 1, we found that robot faces elicit intermediate responses from face-sensitive components relative to non-face objects (clocks) and both real human faces and artificial human faces (computer-generated faces and dolls). These results suggest that while human-like inanimate faces (CG faces and dolls) are processed much like real faces, robot faces are dissimilar enough to human faces to be processed differently. In Experiment 2 we found that the face inversion effect was only partly evident in robot faces. We conclude that robot faces are an intermediate stimulus class that offers insight into the perceptual and cognitive factors that affect how social agents are identified and categorized.

What is So Special About Contemporary CG Faces? Semiotics of MetaHumans

“…Now, even from a purely neurocognitive standpoint, faces are actually much more than t-shaped configurations. As an example, it has been very recently demonstrated that robot faces, despite having such shape, are dissimilar enough from human faces to be processed differently (Geiger and Balas 2021 ) and thus to be also consciously perceived as partially unreal. On this point, however, the same study also showed that human-like inanimate faces (CG faces and dolls) are processed much like real faces.…”