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.

It's not all in the face: reduced face visibility does not modulate social segmentation

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

Putting Culture Under The 'Spotlight' Reveals Universal Information Use For Face Recognition

Invisible Social Grouping Facilitates the Recognition of Individual Faces.

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

Mapping Face Recognition Information Use across Cultures.

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

Glimpses into the social mind: Decoding messages from faces and eyes.

Processing of invisible social cues

The Part Task of the Part-Spacing Paradigm is Not a Pure Measurement of Part-Based Information of Faces.

Not Socially Blind: Unimpaired Perception of Social Interaction in Schizophrenia

Incomplete Faces Do but Masked Faces Do Not Affect Mind Perception

How social exclusion modulates social information processing: A behavioural dissociation between facial expressions and gaze direction

Individual differences in social intelligence and perception of emotion expression of masked and unmasked faces

Do the eyes really have it? Dynamic allocation of attention when viewing moving faces

Don't look now! Social elements are harder to avoid during scene viewing

The effect of face masks and sunglasses on identity and expression recognition with super-recognizers and typical observers

Face mask reduces gaze-cueing effect

Relative contributions of the face and body to social judgements: emotion, threat and status

Social excluder’s face reduces gaze-triggered attention orienting