Abstract:Eye movement strategies employed by humans to identify conspecifics are not universal. Westerners predominantly fixate the eye region during face recognition, whereas Easterners consistently focus more on the nose, yet recognition accuracy is comparable (Blais et al., 2008). However, the face literature has robustly shown that the critical information for face recognition is located in the eyes and partially the mouth, but not the nose. Moreover, since eye movements in natural viewing conditions do not provide unequivocal evidence on the measure of the visual information being used by observers, the question of whether humans universally use similar facial information to recognize faces remains unresolved. To address this issue, we monitored eye movements during face recognition of thirty Western Caucasian (WC) and thirty East Asian (EA) observers with a novel technique that parametrically restricts information outside central vision. We used ‘Spotlights’ with Gaussian apertures of 2°, 5° or 8° dynamically centered on observers' fixations. Face recognition performance improved with increasing Spotlight apertures. Regardless of culture, observers actively fixated the eyes and mouth with constrained Spotlights (2°, 5°). In the 8° condition, information from both eyes and mouth was simultaneously available when fixating the nose and, as expected, only EA observers shifted their fixations towards this region. This central location is optimal to integrate information globally, a cultural marker of Easterners' perceptual strategies. WC observers engage in analytic strategies and their facial feature-by-feature strategy was not affected by Spotlight apertures. Social experience and cultural factors shape the way humans think about the world and regulate the strategies used to extract information from faces. However, these external forces do not modulate the information used to solve this critical biological feat. Human beings rely on identical facial information to recognize conspecifics, a universal law dictated by the evolutionary constraints of nature and not nurture.

Ingroup and outgroup differences in face detection

Invisible Social Grouping Facilitates the Recognition of Individual Faces.

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

(Eye-) Tracking the Other-Race Effect: Comparison of Eye Movements During Encoding and Recognition of Ingroup Faces With Proximal and Distant Outgroup Faces

An eye for the I: Preferential attention to the eyes of ingroup members.

Social categorization and the ingroup biases in face recognition

Eye-tracking the own-race bias in face recognition: Revealing the perceptual and socio-cognitive mechanisms

Face detection in contextual scenes

Extracting Social Meaning from a Face: The Neural Substrates and Behavioral Repercussions of Mind Perception

Distinct Patterns of Neural Response to Faces from Different Races in Humans and Deep Networks

Minimal group membership biases early neural processing of emotional expressions

Intergroup processes and the happy face advantage: How social categories influence emotion categorization.

In-group biases and oculomotor responses: beyond simple approach motivation

Outgroup homogeneity perception as a precursor to the generalization of threat across racial outgroup individuals

Intergroup Threat Gates Social Attention in Humans

The Social‐encoding Benefit in Face Recognition is Generalized to Other‐race Faces

Individuating and categorizing faces: The other-race effect is reduced by attending to racial but not identity cues

Featural vs. Holistic processing and visual sampling in the influence of social category cues on emotion recognition

The Neural Mechanism Underlying Differentiated In-Group Versus Out-Group Face Recognition and Memory, Identification, Empathy and Pro-social Behavior: Evidence from Fmri and ERP Studies

A cognitive template for human face detection