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.

The other-race effect and holistic processing across racial groups

Covariation in the recognition of own-race and other-race faces argues against the role of group bias in the other race effect

The Fusiform Face Area Plays a Greater Role in Holistic Processing for Own-Race Faces Than Other-Race Faces

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Two Faces Of The Other-Race Effect: Recognition And Categorisation Of Caucasian And Chinese Faces

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

Racial Ambiguity Impairs Holistic Face Processing: Evidence from Racially Distinctive and Racially Ambiguous Faces

Differences in Looking at Own- and Other-Race Faces Are Subtle and Analysis-Dependent: An Account of Discrepant Reports

Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict Face Recognition Ability.

Revealing the neural representations underlying other-race face perception

Studies on the Other-race Effect in Face Recognition

Through the eyes of the own-race bias: Eye-tracking and pupillometry during face recognition

High Familiar Faces Have Both Part Recognition and Holistic Processing Advantages

Influence of Perceptual Discriminability and Spatial Distance on Holistic Processing of Faces

The other-race effect in facial expression processing: Behavioral and ERP evidence from a balanced cross-cultural study in women

Other-race Categorisation Advantage in a Binary- Vs. Ternary-Response Race Categorisation Task

Typical and Reverse Other-Race Effect on Tibetan Students’ Emotional Face Recognition

Do neural correlates of face expertise vary with task demands? Event-related potential correlates of own- and other-race face inversion

Two faces of holistic face processing: Facilitation and interference underlying part-whole and composite effects

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

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