Artificial faces are harder to remember. Balas, B. & Pacella, J. Computers in Human Behavior, 52:331--337, November, 2015. ![Artificial faces are harder to remember [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Observers interact with artificial faces in a range of different settings and in many cases must remember and identify computer-generated faces. In general, however, most adults have heavily biased experience favoring real faces over synthetic faces. It is well known that face recognition abilities are affected by experience such that faces belonging to “out-groups” defined by race or age are more poorly remembered and harder to discriminate from one another than faces belonging to the “in-group”. Here, we examine the extent to which artificial faces form an “out-group” in this sense when other perceptual categories are matched. We rendered synthetic faces using photographs of real human faces and compared performance in a memory task and a discrimination task across real and artificial versions of the same faces. We found that real faces were easier to remember, but only slightly more discriminable than artificial faces. Artificial faces were also equally susceptible to the well-known face inversion effect, suggesting that while these patterns are still processed by the human visual system in a face-like manner, artificial appearance does compromise the efficiency of face processing.
@article{balas_artificial_2015,
title = {Artificial faces are harder to remember},
volume = {52},
issn = {0747-5632},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004586},
doi = {10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.018},
abstract = {Observers interact with artificial faces in a range of different settings and in many cases must remember and identify computer-generated faces. In general, however, most adults have heavily biased experience favoring real faces over synthetic faces. It is well known that face recognition abilities are affected by experience such that faces belonging to “out-groups” defined by race or age are more poorly remembered and harder to discriminate from one another than faces belonging to the “in-group”. Here, we examine the extent to which artificial faces form an “out-group” in this sense when other perceptual categories are matched. We rendered synthetic faces using photographs of real human faces and compared performance in a memory task and a discrimination task across real and artificial versions of the same faces. We found that real faces were easier to remember, but only slightly more discriminable than artificial faces. Artificial faces were also equally susceptible to the well-known face inversion effect, suggesting that while these patterns are still processed by the human visual system in a face-like manner, artificial appearance does compromise the efficiency of face processing.},
urldate = {2015-06-29TZ},
journal = {Computers in Human Behavior},
author = {Balas, Benjamin and Pacella, Jonathan},
month = nov,
year = {2015},
keywords = {Artificial faces, Face memory},
pages = {331--337}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"n5KPFSXd8JZ8QvH8Q","bibbaseid":"balas-pacella-artificialfacesarehardertoremember-2015","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-03-16T14:38:25.786Z","title":"Artificial faces are harder to remember","author_short":["Balas, B.","Pacella, J."],"year":2015,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero/hogsford","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Artificial faces are harder to remember","volume":"52","issn":"0747-5632","url":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004586","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.018","abstract":"Observers interact with artificial faces in a range of different settings and in many cases must remember and identify computer-generated faces. In general, however, most adults have heavily biased experience favoring real faces over synthetic faces. It is well known that face recognition abilities are affected by experience such that faces belonging to “out-groups” defined by race or age are more poorly remembered and harder to discriminate from one another than faces belonging to the “in-group”. Here, we examine the extent to which artificial faces form an “out-group” in this sense when other perceptual categories are matched. We rendered synthetic faces using photographs of real human faces and compared performance in a memory task and a discrimination task across real and artificial versions of the same faces. We found that real faces were easier to remember, but only slightly more discriminable than artificial faces. Artificial faces were also equally susceptible to the well-known face inversion effect, suggesting that while these patterns are still processed by the human visual system in a face-like manner, artificial appearance does compromise the efficiency of face processing.","urldate":"2015-06-29TZ","journal":"Computers in Human Behavior","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Balas"],"firstnames":["Benjamin"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pacella"],"firstnames":["Jonathan"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"November","year":"2015","keywords":"Artificial faces, Face memory","pages":"331--337","bibtex":"@article{balas_artificial_2015,\n\ttitle = {Artificial faces are harder to remember},\n\tvolume = {52},\n\tissn = {0747-5632},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004586},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.018},\n\tabstract = {Observers interact with artificial faces in a range of different settings and in many cases must remember and identify computer-generated faces. In general, however, most adults have heavily biased experience favoring real faces over synthetic faces. It is well known that face recognition abilities are affected by experience such that faces belonging to “out-groups” defined by race or age are more poorly remembered and harder to discriminate from one another than faces belonging to the “in-group”. Here, we examine the extent to which artificial faces form an “out-group” in this sense when other perceptual categories are matched. We rendered synthetic faces using photographs of real human faces and compared performance in a memory task and a discrimination task across real and artificial versions of the same faces. We found that real faces were easier to remember, but only slightly more discriminable than artificial faces. Artificial faces were also equally susceptible to the well-known face inversion effect, suggesting that while these patterns are still processed by the human visual system in a face-like manner, artificial appearance does compromise the efficiency of face processing.},\n\turldate = {2015-06-29TZ},\n\tjournal = {Computers in Human Behavior},\n\tauthor = {Balas, Benjamin and Pacella, Jonathan},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tkeywords = {Artificial faces, Face memory},\n\tpages = {331--337}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Balas, B.","Pacella, J."],"key":"balas_artificial_2015","id":"balas_artificial_2015","bibbaseid":"balas-pacella-artificialfacesarehardertoremember-2015","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004586"},"keyword":["Artificial faces","Face memory"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["artificial","faces","harder","remember","balas","pacella"],"keywords":["artificial faces","face memory"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["v98BPm7u4WMoReKPh"]}