Bilateral symmetry is a facial feature that plays an important role in the aesthetic judgments of faces. The extent to which symmetry contributes to the identification of faces is less clear. We investigated the relationship between facial asymmetry and identity using synthetic face stimuli where the geometric identity of the face can be precisely controlled. Thresholds for all observers were 2 times lower for discriminating facial asymmetry than they were for discriminating facial identity. The advantage for discriminating asymmetrical forms was not observed using nonface shape stimuli, suggesting this advantage is face-specific. Moreover, asymmetry thresholds were not affected when faces were either inverted or constructed about a nonmean face. These results, taken together, suggest that facial asymmetry is a characteristic that we are exquisitely sensitive to, and that may not contribute to face identification. This conclusion is consistent with neuroimaging evidence that suggests that face symmetry and face identity are processed by different neural mechanisms.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
2.
ChenC.-C.KaoK.-L.TylerC. W. (2007). Face configuration processing in the human brain: The role of symmetry. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1423–1432. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl054
3.
DakinS. C.HessR. F. (1997). The spatial mechanisms mediating symmetry perception. Vision Research, 37, 2915–2930. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00031-X
4.
FreireA.LeeK.SymonsL. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29, 159–170. doi:10.1068/p3012
5.
GauthierI.TarrM. J.MoylanJ.SkudlarskiP.GoreJ. C.AndersonA. W. (2000). The fusiform “face area” is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 495–504. doi:10.1162/089892900562165
6.
GoldJ.BennettP. J.SekulerA. B. (1999). Identification of bandpass filtered letters and faces by human and ideal observers. Vision Research, 39(21), 3537–3560. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00080-2
7.
GrammerK.ThornhillR. (1994). Human (Homo Sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3), 233–242. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233
8.
HaxbyJ. V.HoffmanM. I.GobbiniM. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(6), 223–233. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0
9.
HoleG. (1994). Configural factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 28, 341–359. doi:10.1068/p230065
10.
KanwisherN.McDermottJ.ChunM. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face recognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311
11.
LangtonS. R. H. (2000). The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 825–845. doi:10.1080/713755908
12.
LangtonS. R. H.WattR. J.BruceV. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 50–59. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01436-9
13.
LittleA. C.JonesB. C. (2006). Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 3093–3099. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3679
14.
LofflerG.WilsonH. R.WilkinsonF. (2003). Local and global contributions to shape discrimination. Vision Research, 43, 519–530. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00686-7
15.
LofflerG.YourganovG.WilkinsonF.WilsonH. R., (2005). fMRI evidence for the neural representation of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 8(10), 1386–1390. doi:10.1038/nn1538
16.
MaurerD.LeGrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
17.
NäsänenR. (1999). Spatial frequency bandwidth used in the recognition of facial images. Vision Research, 39(23), 3824–3833. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(99)00096-6
18.
NicholsD. F.BettsL. R.WilsonH. R. (2010). Decoding of faces and face components in face-sensitive human visual cortex. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00028
19.
NummenmaaL.CalderA. J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 135–143. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.006
20.
QuickR. F. (1974). A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection. Kybernetik, 16(2), 65–67. doi:10.1007/BF00271628
21.
RainvilleS. J. M.KingdomF. A. A. (2002). Scale invariance is driven by stimulus density. Vision Research, 42, 351–367. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00290-5
22.
RhodesG.MaloneyL. T.TurnerJ.EwingL. (2007). Adaptive face coding and discrimination around the average face. Vision Research, 47, 974–989. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.12.010
23.
RhodesG.PetersM.EwingL. A. (2007). Specialized higher-level mechanisms for facial symmetry perception: Evidence from orientation-tuning functions. Perception, 36, 1804–1812. doi:10.1068/p5688
24.
RhodesG.PetersM.LeeK.MorroneM. C.BurrD. (2005). Higher-level mechanisms detect facial symmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1379–1384. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3093
25.
RossionB.CaldaraR.SeghierM.SchullerA.-M.LazeyrasF.MayerE. (2003). A network of occipitotemporal face-sensitive areas besides the right middle fusiform gyrus is necessary for normal face processing. Brain, 126, 2381–2395. doi:10.1093/brain/awg241
26.
RossionB.GauthierI. (2002). How does the brain process upright and inverted faces?Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1(1), 62–74. doi:10.1177/1534582302001001004
27.
ScheibJ. E.GangestadS. W.ThornhillR. (1999). Face attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 1913–1917. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0866
28.
SergentJ.SignoretJ.-L. (1992). Functional and anatomical decomposition of face processing: Evidence from prosopagnosia and PET study of normal subjects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 335, 55–62. doi:10.1098/rstb.1992.0007
29.
SteevesJ. K. E.CulhamJ. C.DuchaineB. C.PratesiC. C.ValyearK. F.SchindlerI.GoodaleM. A. (2005). The fusiform face area is not sufficient for face recognition: Evidence from a patient with dense prosopagnosia and no occipital face area. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 596–609. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.06.013
30.
WilkinsonF.WilsonH. R.HabakC. (1998). Detection and recognition of radial frequency patterns. Vision Research, 38(22), 3555–3568. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00039-X
31.
WilsonH. R.LofflerG.WilkinsonF. (2002). Synthetic faces, face cubes, and the geometry of face space. Vision Research, 42(27), 2909–2923. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(02)00362-0
32.
WilsonH. R.WilkinsonF. (2002). Symmetry perception: A novel approach for biological shapes. Vision Research, 42, 589–597. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00299-1
33.
WinstonJ. S.HensonR. N. A.Fine-GouldenM. R.DolanR. J. (2004). fMRI-adaptation reveals dissociable neural representations of identity and expression in face perception. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92(3), 1830–1839. doi:10.1152/jn.00155.2004
34.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 41–145. doi:10.1037/h0027474
35.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. (1987). Configural information in face processing. Perception, 10, 747–759. doi:10.1068/p160747