Individual differences in adaptive coding of face identity are linked to individual

differences in face recognition ability

Gillian Rhodes1, Linda Jeffery1 & Libby Taylor1, William G. Hayward1,2, & Louise

Ewing1

1ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, School of Psychology,

University of Western Australia

2Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

WORD COUNT: 2503

Please address correspondence to:Professor Gillian RhodesSchool of PsychologyUniversity of Western Australia35 Stirling HighwayCrawley, WA 6009AUSTRALIAphone: +61-8-6488-3251fax: +61-8-6488-1006email: gillian.rhodes@uwa.edu.au

Running head: Individual differences in face adaptation

Keywords: face recognition, face identity aftereffects, face adaptation, individual

differences

Abstract

Despite their similarity as visual patterns, we can discriminate and recognize many

thousands of faces. This expertise has been linked to two coding mechanisms:

holistic integration of information across the face and adaptive coding of face identity

using norms tuned by experience. Recently, individual differences in face recognition

ability have been discovered and linked to differences in holistic coding. Here we

show that they are also linked to individual differences in adaptive coding of face

identity, measured using face identity aftereffects. Identity aftereffects correlated

significantly with several measures of face-selective recognition ability. They also

correlated marginally with own-race face recognition ability, suggesting a role for

adaptive coding in the well-known other-race effect. More generally, these results

highlight the important functional role of adaptive face-coding mechanisms in face

expertise, taking us beyond the traditional focus on holistic coding mechanisms.

2

Introduction

Our ability to discriminate and recognize many faces, despite their similarity

as visual patterns, has traditionally been linked to holistic coding mechanisms. These

integrate information across the face and represent spatial relations between

component features as well as the features themselves (Farah, Wilson, Drain, &

Tanaka, 1998; Maurer, Grand, & Mondloch, 2002; McKone, Kanwisher, & Duchaine,

2007; McKone & Robbins, 2011; Rhodes, 2013; Rossion, 2008; Tanaka & Gordon,

2011).

More recently, there has been growing interest in the role that adaptive face-

coding mechanisms might play in face expertise (for reviews, see Rhodes, 2013;

Rhodes & Leopold, 2011; Webster & MacLeod, 2011). The adaptive nature of face

identity coding is highlighted by face identity aftereffects, where exposure to a face

(e.g., antiDan) shifts the average (norm) towards that face, biasing perception

selectively towards the opposite identity (e.g., Dan) (Leopold, O'Toole, Vetter, &

Blanz, 2001; Rhodes & Jeffery, 2006; Tsao, Freiwald, Tootell, & Livingstone, 2006)

(Figure 1). This selective bias towards the identity opposite (relative to the average)

suggests that the average functions as a perceptual norm for coding identity. These

aftereffects reflect adaptation of higher-level face-coding mechanisms and cannot be

fully explained by adaptation of low-level or mid-level (generic) shape-coding

mechanisms (e.g., Rhodes, Evangelista, & Jeffery, 2009; Susilo, McKone, &

Edwards, 2010).

3

Figure 1. A hypothetical two-dimensional face-space with two target identities,

reduced identity strength versions of those faces, and an average face. Each target

identity (e.g., Dan) has a matching antiface (e.g., antiDan) with opposite attributes

(e.g., Dan has thin lips, antiDan has thick lips). In the identity aftereffect, exposure to

a face (e.g., antiDan) shifts the average (norm) towards that face, biasing perception

selectively towards the opposite identity (e.g., Dan) and making it easier to identify

low identity-strength versions of Dan.

Two lines of evidence suggest that adaptive coding of identity may contribute

to face expertise. First, face identity aftereffects are reduced in populations with face

recognition difficulties (Fiorentini, Gray, Rhodes, Jeffery, & Pellicano, 2012;

Palermo, Rivolta, Wilson, & Jeffery, 2011; Pellicano, Jeffery, Burr, & Rhodes, 2007).

Second, in typical populations, discrimination can be better around an average than a

non-average face (Armann, Jeffery, Calder, Bülthoff, & Rhodes, 2011; Wilson,

Loffler, & Wilkinson, 2002), suggesting that adaptive calibration of one’s norm to

match the population average is useful (Rhodes, Watson, Jeffery, & Clifford, 2010).

4

However, functional benefits are not always found, despite extensive testing (e.g.,

Nishimura, Doyle, Humphreys, & Behrmann, 2010; Rhodes, Maloney, Turner, &

Ewing, 2007) and it is an open question whether adaptive coding contributes to face

recognition ability.

Here we seek new evidence for a functional role of adaptive coding in face

expertise using an individual differences approach. Despite a long-standing view that

we are all face experts, it is now clear that there are strong and stable individual

differences in face recognition ability (Wilhelm et al., 2010; Wilmer et al., 2010).

These have been linked to variation in holistic coding, supporting a functional role of

holistic coding in face expertise (DeGutis, Wilmer, Mercado, & Cohan, 2012; Richler,

Cheung, & Gauthier, 2011; Wang, Li, Fang, Tian, & Liu, 2012) (but see Konar,

Bennet, & Sekuler, 2010). Here, we asked whether they are also linked to individual

differences in adaptive coding of identity, consistent with a functional role for

adaptive coding mechanisms. Individual differences in face-selective recognition

ability have recently been linked to figural eye-height aftereffects (Dennett, McKone,

Edwards, & Susilo, 2012). However, although eye-height may be relevant to identity,

these are distortion aftereffects, which transfer across identity and require judgments

about normality, rather than identity. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether

adaptive coding of identity itself is linked to face recognition ability.

Our first aim was to determine whether there are stable individual differences

in face identity aftereffects that are related to face recognition ability. We measured

adaptive coding of identity directly, using face identity aftereffects. We measured

face recognition ability using the well-known Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT)

(Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006) and an old-new recognition memory test developed

for the present study. We also measured non-face memory, using the Cambridge Car

5

Memory Test (CCMT) (Dennett et al., 2011), so that we could derive indices of face-

selective recognition ability (DeGutis et al., 2012).

Our second aim was to determine whether adaptive coding of identity might

be linked more specifically to own-race face expertise, i.e., to better recognition of

own-race than other-race faces (Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Individual differences

in own-race expertise have been linked to holistic coding differences (in Caucasian

individuals) (DeGutis, Mercado, Wilmer, & Rosenblatt, 2013), but it is not known

whether they are linked with adaptive coding differences. Previous studies have

shown that Caucasian individuals maintain distinct norms for faces of different races

(Caucasian and Asian) and have similar-sized face aftereffects for own- and other-

race faces (Armann et al., 2011; Jaquet, Rhodes, & Hayward, 2008). Therefore, it is

unlikely that greater adaptation to own- than other-race faces contributes to superior

expertise for own-race faces. However, in a predominantly own-race environment,

the coding mechanisms of people who adapt more (to all faces) might become more

selectively tuned (calibrated) to own-race faces. If this calibration helps us recognize

faces, as proposed, then face identity aftereffects, which index strength of adaptation,

should be linked to own-race expertise.

To test whether adaptive coding of identity is linked specifically to own-race

face expertise, we measured old-new recognition of other-race (Chinese) and own-

race (Caucasian) faces in our Caucasian participants, and used residuals from a

regression in which other-race recognition scores predicted own-race recognition

scores to isolate own-race-selective expertise (following DeGutis et al., 2012). A

positive correlation between these residuals and face identity aftereffects would link

adaptability to own-race expertise.

6

Method

Participants

Two-hundred-and-forty Caucasian adults (63 male) (M = 19.3 years, SD = 4.1

yrs, range = 17 – 46) participated for course credit.

Tasks

Face Identity Aftereffect. This task measures adaptive coding of identity,

and was adapted from previous studies (Jeffery et al., 2011; Rhodes et al., 2011)

(details in Supplementary Materials). Briefly, on each trial participants view an

adapting face, followed by a (low-identity-strength) target face, which they must

identify (Figure 1). On match trials, the adapting antiface lies opposite the target

identity (e.g., adapt antiDan, test Dan), facilitating its identification. On mismatch

trials (e.g., adapt antiJim, test Dan), the adapting face is not opposite the target,

impairing identification (because perception is biased towards the non-target identity

that lies opposite the adaptor, e.g., Jim). The aftereffect is measured as accuracy on

match trials minus accuracy on mismatch trials. Adapt and test faces were different

sizes to minimize the contribution of low-level, retinotopic adaptation.

Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). The CFMT is a well-validated and

widely used test of face recognition ability (Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006). Briefly, it

tests memory for six male Caucasian faces, under three conditions: test faces (3AFC)

that match the images studied, test faces that are different images from the study faces

and test faces that are different images with visual noise added. We used the total

score (maximum of 72) as the dependent measure.

Old-New Recognition Memory. We created an old-new recognition test to

further measure memory for own-race (Caucasian) faces, and to measure memory for

other-race (Asian) faces (details in Supplementary Materials). Briefly, participants

7

saw study faces (male) in front view and had to identify these from a series of test

faces shown in ¾ view. They saw six study-test blocks, each with 10 study faces

(3000 ms each), followed by 20 test faces (5000 ms each). Half the blocks contained

own-race faces and half contained other-race faces, with blocks alternating by race.

The dependent measure, d, was calculated separately for own-race and other-race

faces.

Cambridge Car Memory Test (CCMT). The CCMT is analogous to the

CFMT, but uses cars instead of faces (Dennett et al., 2011).

Procedure

Participants were tested individually in two sessions, lasting up to 40 minutes,

one week apart. Participants completed two or more of the following tasks, in the

order indicated: Face Identity Aftereffect (FIAE) (N = 129), Old-New Recognition

(N = 149), CFMT (N = 240), CCMT (N = 65). The Face Identity Aftereffect task was

split in half and completed over two sessions. These tasks were part of a larger

battery that included tasks unrelated to the present study. All tasks were presented

using SuperLab 4.0.6.

Results

Table 1 shows task reliability. Reliability is well established for the CFMT

(Bowles et al., 2009) and CCMT (Dennett et al., 2011). Importantly, reliability was

reasonable for face identity aftereffects, indicating that there are stable individual

differences in the adaptive coding of identity. Reliability was poorer for old-new

recognition of other-race faces. There were no multivariate outliers, according to

Mahalanobis distances. Univariate SPSS outliers were replaced by scores 2 SDs

above/below the mean, as appropriate (CFMT, N = 1; Own-race d, N = 1, Other-race

8

d, N = 1). All variables were normally distributed, except for the CFMT, but skew

and kurtosis were within acceptable limits for parametric analysis (Table 1) (Stuart &

Kendall, 1958). Descriptive statistics for the final distributions are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and reliability for all tasks.

Reliability N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurtosis

Face Identity AEs .54 129 -.09 .69 .26 .17 .10 -.45CFMT .89 240 34 72 57.23 8.10 -.47 -.34CFMT_residuals .88 112 -2.90 1.81 0.00 1.00 -.35 -.32Own-race d .66 149 -.08 2.34 1.16 .46 .21 -.21Other-race d .36 149 -.08 2.00 .85 .43 .26 -.25Own-race_residuals .43 149 -2.35 2.60 0.00 1.00 .23 -.17CCMT .83 112 30 72 51.61 8.41 .02 -.48

Notes. Reliabilities for Face Identity Aftereffects (AEs), Own-race d and Other-race

d are Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliabilities (means from 50 random

splits). Reliability for the face identity AE task was .60 when calculated using the two

halves in which it was administered. CFMT reliability (from Bowles et al., 2009) and

CCMT reliability (from Dennett et al., 2011) are Cronbach’s alphas. CFMT –

Cambridge Face Memory Test. CCMT – Cambridge Car Memory Test.

CFMT_residuals are residuals from a regression using CCMT scores to predict CFMT

scores. Own-race_residuals are residuals from a regression using other- race d scores

to predict own-race d scores.

Face identity aftereffects correlate with face-selective recognition ability

We found small-moderate, significant positive correlations of face identity

aftereffects with the CFMT and own-race d scores (Figure 2, Table 2). Although

these correlations weren’t large, they were quite substantial given the upper bounds

imposed by reliability (square root of product of the two reliabilities) (CFMT upper

bound r = .69; own-race d upper bound r = .60). In contrast, identity aftereffects

correlated negatively (and non-significantly) with non-face (CCMT) recognition

9

(Table 2).1 These results link adaptive coding of identity selectively with face

recognition rather than visual recognition generally.

To more directly test whether adaptive coding of identity is linked to face-

selective recognition ability, we used residuals from a regression that predicted CFMT

scores from CCMT scores as an explicit measure of face-selective recognition ability.

These residuals correlated moderately and significantly with face identity aftereffects,

r = .288, p = .02, N = 65 (Figure 3).

We also derived a second measure of face-selective recognition ability from a

PCA conducted on the three face recognition scores (CFMT, own-race d, other-race

d) and car recognition (CCMT) scores. As expected, the PCA yielded two factors,

with face scores loading on a “face PC” (explaining 40.2% of variance), and car

scores loading on a “car PC” (explaining 27.3% of variance). Face identity

aftereffects correlated positively and significantly with the face PC, but negatively

(and non-significantly) with the car PC (Table 2), further indicating that adaptive

coding is linked selectively to face recognition ability, and not to visual memory

generally.

1 The low correlation with CCMT scores cannot be attributed to poor reliability, because this test has excellent reliability.

10

Figure 2. Scatterplot with best-fitting regression line illustrating the relationship

between face identity aftereffects and two measures of face recognition ability:

CFMT and own-race d.

11

Table 2. Pearson correlations between face identity aftereffects (AEs), face memory

variables and non-face (car) memory variables. Face PC and Car PC are principal

components from a Principal Components Analysis conducted on face recognition

scores (CFMT, own-race d, other-race d) and car recognition scores (CCMT).

CFMT Own-race d Other-race d Face PC CCMT Car PC

Face Identity AEs r .173* .248* .159 .320** -.085 -.106p .049 .022 .145 .009 .499 .897N 129 85 85 65 65 65

CFMT r .265** .339** .707** .159 -.285*p .000 .000 .000 .094 .022N 189 189 65 112 112

Own-race d r .438** .656** .134 .477**p .000 .000 289 .000N 189 65 65 65

Other-race d r .789** -.042 -.121p .000 742 .339N 65 65 65

Face PC r .028 .000p .824 1.000N 65 65

CCMT r .876**p .000N 65

Note. Ns are lower than in Table 1 because not all participants did all tasks.

* p < .05, ** p < .01

12

Figure 3. Scatterplot with best-fitting regression line illustrating the relationship

between face identity aftereffects and face-selective recognition ability (residuals

from regression predicting CFMT scores from CCMT scores).

Face identity aftereffects correlate with own-race expertise

As expected, recognition (d) was better for own-race than other-race faces,

t(148) = 7.97, p < .0001 (Cohen’s d = .71), confirming that our test was sensitive to

own-race expertise (Table 1). We used residuals from a regression that predicted

own-race recognition from other-race recognition as our measure of own-race

expertise. Face identity aftereffects showed a small-to-moderate correlation with

own-race expertise, r = .194, p = .076, N = 85 (but none with other-race expertise, i.e.,

residuals from regression predicting other-race from own-race recognition, r = .068, p

= .534, N = 85). Although only marginally significant, the effect size indicates a

modest link between adaptive coding of identity and own-race expertise.

13

Discussion

Our results provide direct evidence that individual differences in face

recognition ability are linked to differences in adaptive coding of identity. Face

identity aftereffects correlated positively with several measures of face recognition,

including measures of face-selective recognition, but negatively (non-significantly)

with non-face (car) recognition ability. This link between adaptive coding of identity

and face-selective recognition ability supports a functional role for adaptive coding in

face expertise.

Our results are consistent with evidence that face adaptation is reduced in

some clinical populations with face-processing difficulties (Ewing, Pellicano, &

Rhodes, 2012; Palermo et al., 2011; Pellicano et al., 2007; Pellicano, Rhodes, &

Calder, 2013). Importantly, they show that this link between face adaptation and

recognition performance extends across the full range of neuro-typical performance.

One previous study has linked face aftereffects to face recognition ability in the

neuro-typical population (Dennett et al., 2012). However, that study measured how

adaptation to a single face dimension, eye-height, affected perceptions of normality.

Here we measured identity aftereffects, which directly assess how adaptation on all

identity-related dimensions affects the perception of identity.

We also found a small-moderate, marginally significant, correlation between

face identity aftereffects (for own-race faces) and own-race face expertise in

Caucasian participants. This result is expected if face adaptation calibrates coding

mechanisms to the diet of faces, because people who adapt more strongly should have

mechanisms that are tuned more selectively to own-race faces than their peers (when

own-race faces predominate). However, caution is needed. The correlation was only

marginally significant, possibly because our measure of other-race recognition had

14

relatively low reliability, and only Caucasian participants were tested. Therefore, it

will be important to confirm this link between adaptability of face-coding

mechanisms and own-race-selective expertise in future studies.

A plausible reason for the observed link between adaptive coding of identity

and recognition ability is that over time adaptation calibrates coding mechanisms to

the population of faces that we experience and this calibration facilitates recognition

(for reviews see Clifford & Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes & Leopold, 2011; Webster &

MacLeod, 2011). Alternatively, Dennett et al. (2012) have proposed that the link

between adaptation and face recognition could stem from the slope of the tuning

functions of the neural populations that code face dimensions. They argue that

steeper tuning curves (over a fixed range) produce both larger aftereffects (because

adaptors will produce more activation and hence more adaptation) and better

recognition (because subtler discriminations can be made). A similar account might

apply to all identity-related dimensions. This account avoids any chicken-and-egg

problem of whether more adaptation causes better recognition or vice versa, because

both reflect the shape of the underlying neural tuning functions. Of course, the

question then becomes, what long-term factors determine the slope of the tuning

functions? A good candidate is adaptation (Georgeson, 2004).

Individual differences in face recognition ability have a genetic basis (McKone

& Palermo, 2010; Wilmer et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2010) (but see DeGutis, Wilmer,

Mercado, & Cohan, 2013 for a critique of subtraction-based measures used by Zhu et

al.). It is possible, therefore, that the individual differences in adaptive coding of

identity that are linked to those differences also have a genetic basis. Certainly,

individual differences in holistic coding that have been linked to recognition ability

appear to have a genetic basis (McKone & Palermo, 2010). Future studies using

15

twins could determine whether the variation in adaptive face-coding mechanisms

observed here also has a genetic basis.

Our expertise in recognizing faces has been linked to two coding mechanisms:

holistic integration of information across the face and adaptive norm-based coding of

identity using norms tuned by experience. The effects obtained here between

adaptive coding and face recognition ability were similar in size (small-moderate) to

those reported previously between holistic coding and face recognition ability

(DeGutis et al., 2012; Richler et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, holistic and

adaptive coding of identity may make similar contributions to our face expertise. It

will be interesting in future studies to directly compare the relative contributions of

these two coding mechanisms, and try to determine how much of the individual

variation in face expertise they can explain together.

16

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence

in Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021), an ARC Professorial Fellowship to

Rhodes (DP0877379) and an ARC Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award to

Rhodes (DP130102300). We thank Christian Meissner for supplying Caucasian faces

used in the old/new recognition tests, Rachell Barker for assistance with stimulus

preparation, Ainsley Read for assistance with testing, and Mayu Nishimura and

Daphne Maurer for co-creating the Robbers Game used in the Identity Aftereffects

task. Ethical approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the

University of Western Australia.

17

References

Armann, R., Jeffery, L., Calder, A. J., Bülthoff, I., & Rhodes, G. (2011). Race-specific norms for coding face identity and a functional role for norms. Journal of Vision, 11(13:9), 1-14.

Bowles, D. C., McKone, E., Dawel, A., Duchaine, B., Palermo, R., Schmalzl, L., . . . Yovel, G. (2009). Diagnosing prosopagnosia: Effects of ageing, sex, and participant–stimulus ethnic match on the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Cambridge Face Perception Test. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26(5), 423-455.

Clifford, C. W. G., & Rhodes, G. (Eds.). (2005). Fitting the Mind to the World: Adaptation and After-Effects in High-Level Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DeGutis, J., Mercado, Rogelio J, Wilmer, Jeremy, & Rosenblatt, Andrew. (2013). Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict the Own-Race Advantage in Recognition Memory. PloS one, 8(4), e58253.

DeGutis, J., Wilmer, J. B., Mercado, R. J., & Cohan, S. (2012). Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability. Cognition, 126, 87-100.

DeGutis, J., Wilmer, J. B., Mercado, R. J., & Cohan, S. (2013). Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability. Cognition, 126, 87-100.

Dennett, H. W., McKone, E., Edwards, M., & Susilo, T. (2012). Face aftereffect predict individual differences in face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1279-1287.

Dennett, H. W., McKone, E., Tavashmi, R., Hall, A., Pidcock, M., Edwards, M., & Duchaine, B. (2011). The Cambridge Car Memory Test: A task matched in format to the Cambridge Face Memory Test, with norms, reliability, sex differences, dissociations from face memory, and expertise effects. Behavior research methods, 44, 587-605.

Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576-585.

Ewing, L., Pellicano, E., & Rhodes, G. (2012). Atypical updating of face representations with experience in children with autism. Submitted for publication.

Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is "special" about face perception? Psychological Review, 105(482-498).

Fiorentini, C., Gray, L., Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., & Pellicano, E. (2012). Reduced face identity aftereffects in relatives of children with autism. Neuropsychologia, 50(12), 2926-2932.

Georgeson, Mark. (2004). Visual aftereffects: Cortical neurons change their tune. Current Biology, 14(18), R751-R753.

Jaquet, E., Rhodes, G., & Hayward, W. G. (2008). Race-contingent aftereffects suggest distinct perceptual norms for different race faces. Visual Cognition, 16(6), 734-753.

Jeffery, L., Rhodes, G., McKone, E., Pellicano, E., Crookes, K., & Taylor, E. (2011). Distinguishing norm-based from exemplar-based coding of identity in

18

children: Evidence from face identity aftereffects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1824-1840. doi: 10.1037/a0025643

Konar, Y., Bennet, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38-43.

Leopold, D. A., O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. nature neuroscience, 4(1), 89-94.

Maurer, D., Grand, R. L., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255-260.

McKone, E., Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 8-15.

McKone, E., & Palermo, R. (2010). A strong role for nature in face recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 4795-4796.

McKone, E., & Robbins, R. (2011). Are faces special? In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnson & J. V. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception (pp. 149-176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meissner, Christian A, & Brigham, John C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3.

Nishimura, M., Doyle, J., Humphreys, K., & Behrmann, M. (2010). Probing the face-space of individuals with prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 48(6), 1828-1841.

Palermo, R., Rivolta, D., Wilson, C. E., & Jeffery, L. (2011). Adaptive face space coding in congenital prosopagnosia: Typical figural aftereffects but abnormal identity aftereffects. Neuropsychologia, 49(14), 3801-3812.

Pellicano, E., Jeffery, L., Burr, D., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Abnormal adaptive face-coding mechanisms in children with autism spectrum disorder. Current Biology, 17(17), 1508-1512.

Pellicano, E., Rhodes, Gillian, & Calder, Andrew J. (2013). Reduced gaze aftereffects are related to difficulties categorizing gaze direction in autism. Neuropsychologia.

Rhodes, G. (2013). Face Recognition. In D. Resiberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 46-68). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, G., Evangelista, E., & Jeffery, L. (2009). Orientation-sensitivity of face identity aftereffects. Vision research, 49, 2379-2385.

Rhodes, G., & Jeffery, L. (2006). Adaptive norm-based coding of facial identity. Vision research, 46, 2977-2987.

Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Evangelista, E., Ewing, L., Peters, M, & Taylor, L. (2011). Enhanced attention amplifies face adaptation. Vision research, 51, 1811-1819.

Rhodes, G., & Leopold, D. A. (2011). Adaptive norm-based coding of face identity. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnson & J. V. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception (pp. 263-286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, G., Maloney, L. T., Turner, J., & Ewing, L. (2007). Adaptive face coding and discrimination around the average face. Vision research, 47, 974-989.

Rhodes, G., Watson, T. L., Jeffery, L., & Clifford, C. W. G. (2010). Perceptual adaptation helps us identify faces. Vision research, 50, 963-968.

Richler, J. J., Cheung, O. S., & Gauthier, I. (2011). Holistic processing predicts face recognition. Psychological Science, 22(4), 464-471.

19

Rossion, B. (2008). Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica, 128, 274-289.

Stuart, Alan, & Kendall, Maurice George. (1958). Advanced theory of statistics: Griffin.

Susilo, T., McKone, E., & Edwards, M. (2010). Solving the upside-down puzzle: Why do upright and inverted face aftereffects look alike? Journal of Vision, 10(13), 1-16.

Tanaka, J. W., & Gordon, I. (2011). Features, configuration, and holistic face processing. In A. J. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnson & J. V. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception (pp. 177-194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsao, D. Y., Freiwald, W. A., Tootell, R. B. H., & Livingstone, M. S. (2006). A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science, 311(5761), 670.

Wang, R., Li, J., Fang, H., Tian, M., & Liu, J. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23, 169-177.

Webster, M. A., & MacLeod, D. I. A. (2011). Visual adaptation and face perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 366, 1702-1725.

Wilhelm, Oliver, Herzmann, Grit, Kunina, Olga, Danthiir, Vanessa, Schacht, Annekathrin, & Sommer, Werner. (2010). Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces-One element of social cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(3), 530-548.

Wilmer, J. B., Germine, L., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., Williams, M., Loken, E., . . . Duchaine, B. C. (2010). Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5238-5241.

Wilson, Hugh R, Loffler, Gunter, & Wilkinson, Frances. (2002). Synthetic faces, face cubes, and the geometry of face space. Vision research, 42(27), 2909-2923.

Zhu, Q., Song, Y., Hu, S., Li, X., Tian, M., Zhen, Z., . . . Liu, J. (2010). Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face perception. Current Biology, 20, 137-142.

20

Supplementary Materials - Task Details

Face identity aftereffects task

Stimuli. Grayscale photographs of four male faces comprised the targets

(“Dan”, “Jim”, “Rob”, and “Ted”) (taken from Jeffery et al., 2011). Reduced

strength versions were made by morphing each face toward an average face

(constructed from 20 adult male faces) using Gryphon Morph 2.5 (Maxwell, 1994), in

varying increments to produce 15%, 30% and 90% versions of each target. The 100%

and 30% stimuli were used only in training and the 90% and 15% stimuli were used

as test faces (see Figure 1). Adapting antifaces were made by caricaturing the form of

the average male away from each target face by 80% (after Leopold, O'Toole, Vetter,

& Blanz, 2001) using Gryphon Morph 2.5 (Maxwell, 1994). To minimize non-facial

cues stimuli were masked so that the top of the hairline was obscured. Adapting faces

subtended an average visual angle of 5.5° (v) x 5.6° (h), viewed from approximately

65 cm. Test faces were 20% smaller, to minimise the impact of low-level adaptation,

measuring 4.8° (v) X 4.5° (h).

Procedure.

The task was presented as the “Robbers Game”, following Jeffery et al (2011).

The game context was devised for use with children but has also proved an engaging

way to present the task to adults (Jeffery et al, 2011, 2013). Participants began with

training in recognizing the targets (100% versions) and familiarization with lower

strength versions of the targets (30% versions), who were introduced as the brothers

of each target. Participants were told to respond with the team leader’s name (target)

whenever they saw the target or a member of his team (his brothers). Participants

responded using labeled keyboard keys. Auditory feedback (beeps) was provided for

correct and incorrect responses throughout training.

21

Figure 1. Face stimuli used in the identity aftereffect task. The first row shows the

four target identities “Dan”, “Jim”, “Rob”, and “Ted” (l-r). Rows 2, 3, and 4 show

weaker versions of the targets used in training and test. Row 5 shows the adapting

antifaces.

Participants then completed the adaptation task. The experimenter explained

that a robber’s face (adapting antiface) would appear on the screen, “while he was

stealing things”, and then it would disappear and be followed by a very brief

presentation of the face of the team member (test stimulus) who caught the robber.

22

The participant was asked to identify the catcher’s team. The task comprised 96 trials.

The 15% stimuli were the test faces on 64 trials, which comprised 32 match trials, in

which the adapting antiface and test face lay on the same identity trajectory and 32

mismatch trials in which the adapt and test face came from different identity

trajectories (see Figure 2). Each target was shown equally often in each condition

(i.e. 8 trials per target). The remaining 32 trials featured 90% targets as test faces (16

match and 16 mismatch trials). These easy-to-identify stimuli were included to ensure

participants remained motivated throughout the task and data from these trials were

not analyzed.

Each trial began with blank grey screen (300 ms) then the adapting faces was

shown (5000 ms), followed by a 150 ms inter-stimulus interval, then the test face

(400ms). A blank screen followed and remained until the participant responded.

Following response participants initiated the next trial by pressing the spacebar. Trial

sequence is shown in Figure 2. Trials were presented in one of two pseudorandom

orders, constrained so that the same adapting face did not appear more than four times

consecutively, to avoid building up adaptation to one face. Participants were

randomly allocated to one order. The 96 trials were divided into eight blocks of 12

trials. Half the trials were completed in the first test session and the remainder in the

week following (second session). Training was completed prior to the adaptation task

on both days. The experimenter observed each participant to ensure they looked at the

adapting faces for the full presentation.

23

Figure 2. Example match and mismatch trial sequence and timings in the Face

Identity Aftereffect Task (adapted from Jeffery et al, 2011).

Old-new recognition of own-race and other-race faces

This was a standard old-new recognition task using Asian and Caucasian

faces. It took approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Stimuli. Study faces were front-views of 30 Caucasian and 30 Asian faces.

Test faces consisted of the study faces photographed at 3/4 view, as well as an 30 3/4

view distractors for each race. All faces were male and displaying a neutral

expression. Caucasian face stimuli were obtained from Christian Meissner and Asian

face stimuli were obtained from William Hayward. To minimize the use of non-face

cues, the hair (including forehead hairline) was masked. Study faces measured

24

approximately 5.9° x 5.3° (Asian), and 6.0° x 5.3 (Caucasian), and test faces

measured 6.5° x 5.5° (h) (Asian), and 6.8° x 5.7° (h) (Caucasian), when viewed from

60 cm.

Procedure. Participants were verbally informed that they would see 10 faces

consecutively, which they must try to remember, and that once they have seen all 10

faces, they would see the faces a second time to enhance their memory. Participants

were instructed that once this study phase was over, they would then be shown a

bigger group of faces, one at a time, to which they must indicate whether the face was

“old” or “new”. Participants were told that this study-test sequence would occur six

times. Instructions were also presented on screen prior to beginning the task.

Study faces were presented for 3000 ms followed by a 500 ms ISI. Once the

series of 10 faces was shown, an instruction screen was displayed asking participants

to press the spacebar to see the faces again. After the series of faces was repeated,

participants were given one minute to work on a number sleuth puzzle. Following this

was the test phase. Each test trial began with a 3/4 view test face presented for 5000

ms, followed by a screen featuring the wording, “Did you see this face in the previous

study phase?”. The participant’s response triggered the next trial to begin. There were

20 trials in each test block. Faces were blocked by race, with race alternating across

study-test blocks and race of the first block counterbalanced across participants. Study

faces were allocated to study blocks in a fixed random order. Trial order was

randomized within study and test blocks.

Jeffery, L., Rhodes, G., McKone, E., Pellicano, E., Crookes, K., & Taylor, E. (2011). Distinguishing norm-based from exemplar-based coding of identity in children: Evidence from face identity aftereffects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1824-1840. doi: 10.1037/a0025643

25

Leopold, D. A., O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., & Blanz, V. (2001). Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nature Neuroscience, 4(1), 89-94. doi: 10.1038/82947

Maxwell, D. (1994). Gryphon Morph (Version 2.5): Gryphon Software Corporation.

26