Perception of threat and intent to harm from vocal and facial cues.

What constitutes a "threatening tone of voice"? There is currently little research exploring how listeners infer threat, or the intention to cause harm, from speakers' voices. Here, we investigated the influence of key linguistic variables on these evaluations (Study 1). Results showed a trend for voices perceived to be lower in pitch, particularly those of male speakers, to be evaluated as sounding more threatening and conveying greater intent to harm. We next investigated the evaluation of multimodal stimuli comprising voices and faces varying in perceived dominance (Study 2). Visual information about the speaker's face had a significant effect on threat and intent ratings. In both experiments, we observed a relatively low level of agreement among individual listeners' evaluations, emphasising idiosyncrasy in the ways in which threat and intent-to-harm are perceived. This research provides a basis for the perceptual experience of a "threatening tone of voice," along with an exploration of vocal and facial cue integration in social evaluation.

Responding to social and symbolic extrafoveal cues: cue shape trumps biological relevance.

Social cues presented at visual fixation have been shown to strongly influence an observer's attention and response selection. Here we ask whether the same holds for cues (initially) presented away from fixation, as cues are commonly perceived in natural vision. In six experiments, we show that extrafoveally presented cues with a distinct outline, such as pointing hands, rotated heads, and arrow cues result in strong cueing of responses (either to the cue itself, or a cued object). In contrast, cues without a clear outline, such as gazing eyes and direction words exert much weaker effects on participants' responses to a target cue. We also show that distraction effects on response times are relatively weak, but that strong interference effects can be obtained by measuring mouse trajectories. Eye tracking suggests that gaze cues are slower to respond to because their direction cannot easily be perceived in extrafoveal vision. Together, these data suggest that the strength of an extrafoveal cue is determined by the shape of the cue outline, rather than its biological relevance (i.e., whether the cue is provided by another human being), and that this shape effect is due to how easily the direction of a cue can be perceived in extrafoveal vision.

Face-selective regions show invariance to linear, but not to non-linear, changes in facial images.

Familiar face recognition is remarkably invariant across huge image differences, yet little is understood concerning how image-invariant recognition is achieved. To investigate the neural correlates of invariance, we localized the core face-responsive regions and then compared the pattern of fMR-adaptation to different stimulus transformations in each region to behavioural data demonstrating the impact of the same transformations on familiar face recognition. In Experiment 1, we compared linear transformations of size and aspect ratio to a non-linear transformation affecting only part of the face. We found that adaptation to facial identity in face-selective regions showed invariance to linear changes, but there was no invariance to non-linear changes. In Experiment 2, we measured the sensitivity to non-linear changes that fell within the normal range of variation across face images. We found no adaptation to facial identity for any of the non-linear changes in the image, including to faces that varied in different levels of caricature. These results show a compelling difference in the sensitivity to linear compared to non-linear image changes in face-selective regions of the human brain that is only partially consistent with their effect on behavioural judgements of identity. We conclude that while regions such as the FFA may well be involved in the recognition of face identity, they are more likely to contribute to some form of normalisation that underpins subsequent recognition than to form the neural substrate of recognition per se.

Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability.

Despite many years of research, there has been surprisingly little progress in our understanding of how faces are identified. Here I argue that there are two contributory factors: (a) Our methods have obscured a critical aspect of the problem, within-person variability; and (b) research has tended to conflate familiar and unfamiliar face processing. Examples of procedures for studying variability are given, and a case is made for studying real faces, of the type people recognize every day. I argue that face recognition (specifically identification) may only be understood by adopting new techniques that acknowledge statistical patterns in the visual environment. As a consequence, some of our current methods will need to be abandoned.

Variability in photos of the same face.

Psychological studies of face recognition have typically ignored within-person variation in appearance, instead emphasising differences between individuals. Studies typically assume that a photograph adequately captures a person's appearance, and for that reason most studies use just one, or a small number of photos per person. Here we show that photographs are not consistent indicators of facial appearance because they are blind to within-person variability. Crucially, this within-person variability is often very large compared to the differences between people. To investigate variability in photos of the same face, we collected images from the internet to sample a realistic range for each individual. In Experiments 1 and 2, unfamiliar viewers perceived images of the same person as being different individuals, while familiar viewers perfectly identified the same photos. In Experiment 3, multiple photographs of any individual formed a continuum of good to bad likeness, which was highly sensitive to familiarity. Finally, in Experiment 4, we found that within-person variability exceeded between-person variability in attractiveness. These observations are critical to our understanding of face processing, because they suggest that a key component of face processing has been ignored. As well as its theoretical significance, this scale of variability has important practical implications. For example, our findings suggest that face photographs are unsuitable as proof of identity.