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.

Cultural difference in neural mechanisms of self-recognition.

Dynamic cultural modulation of neural responses to one's own and friend's faces.

Dynamic Cultural Modulation of Neural Responses to One's Own and Friend's Faces

Neural Basis of Cultural Influence on Self-Representation

Self Identity in Sociocultural Contexts: Implications from Studies of Self-face Recognition

Sociocultural Patterning of Neural Activity During Self-Reflection.

When East Meets West: Gaze-Contingent Blindspots Abolish Cultural Diversity in Eye Movements for Faces

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Cultural Differences in Face Processing Are Robust to Self-Construal Priming

Cultural modulation effects on the self-face advantage: Do Caucasians find their own faces faster than Chinese?

Self-face recognition in attended and unattended conditions: an event-related brain potential study.

Dynamic Bicultural Brains: Fmri Study Of Their Flexible Neural Representation Of Self And Significant Others In Response To Culture Primes

Cultural differences in on-line sensitivity to emotional voices: comparing East and West

The Relation Between the Self and Others: A Transcultural Neuroimaging Approach

Cultural Differences In The Self: From Philosophy To Psychology And Neuroscience

In search of the Chinese self: An fMRI study

Understanding the Self: A Cultural Neuroscience Approach

Cultural Differences in Neurocognitive Processing of Others

Cultural Influences on the Processing of Social Comparison Feedback Signals—an ERP Study

Cultural Influences on Social Feedback Processing of Character Traits

Self-construal priming modulates neural substrates of self-awareness.