Human faces and face-like stimuli are more memorable.
artifactual images
biological images
faces
illusory faces
memorability
Journal
PsyCh journal
ISSN: 2046-0260
Titre abrégé: Psych J
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101598595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
18
03
2022
accepted:
15
04
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We have previously suggested a distinction in the brain processes governing biological and artifactual stimuli. One of the best examples of the biological category consists of human faces, the perception of which appears to be determined by inherited mechanisms or ones rapidly acquired after birth. In extending this work, we inquire here whether there is a higher memorability for images of human faces and whether memorability declines with increasing departure from human faces; if so, the implication would add to the growing evidence of differences in the processing of biological versus artifactual stimuli. To do so, we used images and memorability scores from a large data set of 58,741 images to compare the relative memorability of the following image categories: real human faces versus buildings, and extending this to a comparison of real human faces with five image categories that differ in their grade of resemblance to a real human face. Our findings show that, in general, when we compare the biological category of faces to the artifactual category of buildings, the former is more memorable. Furthermore, there is a gradient in which the more an image resembles a real human face the more memorable it is. Thus, the previously identified differences in biological and artifactual images extend to the field of memory.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35666065
doi: 10.1002/pchj.564
pmc: PMC9796299
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
715-719Subventions
Organisme : Leverhulme Trust
ID : RPG-2017-341
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. PsyCh Journal published by Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Psych J. 2022 Oct;11(5):715-719
pubmed: 35666065
J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2558-68
pubmed: 21254806
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 9;11(1):4518
pubmed: 32908146
J Neurosci. 2019 Feb 6;39(6):1100-1108
pubmed: 30541914
Behav Brain Res. 2017 May 15;325(Pt B):90-104
pubmed: 27616345
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 20;8:837
pubmed: 25368568
Psych J. 2022 Oct;11(5):741-747
pubmed: 35491015
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jan 8;105(1):394-8
pubmed: 18172214
Psych J. 2021 Apr;10(2):190-199
pubmed: 33295099
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 26;113(4):E420-9
pubmed: 26755611
Eur J Neurosci. 2022 Jan;55(1):91-106
pubmed: 34837282
Hum Brain Mapp. 2018 Sep;39(9):3779-3792
pubmed: 29947037
Hippocampus. 2016 Apr;26(4):423-36
pubmed: 26385759
Eur J Neurosci. 2020 Mar;51(6):1441-1462
pubmed: 31397945
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Feb 1;119(5):
pubmed: 35074880
Cognit Comput. 2011 Mar;3(1):223-240
pubmed: 21475690
Cortex. 2014 Apr;53:60-77
pubmed: 24583223
J Psychiatr Res. 2000 May-Jun;34(3):227-38
pubmed: 10867118
Neuroimage. 2001 Apr;13(4):743-50
pubmed: 11305901