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.

Towards a two-factor approach to the cross-race effect

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

Perceptual Processes in the Cross-Race Effect: Evidence From Eyetracking

Closing a conceptual gap in race perception research: A functional integration of the other-race face recognition and "who said what?" paradigms.

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

Face Recognition Subserves Nature Not Nurture

The cross-race effect is mitigated by own-gender bias but not minimal groups or university affiliation

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

General recognition theory with individual differences: a new method for examining perceptual and decisional interactions with an application to face perception

Examining the Impact of Social and Perceptual Encoding Strategies on the Cross‐Race Recognition Deficit

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

Crowding the face-space: The attractor field hypothesis and within-person variability

Can intentional forgetting reduce the cross-race effect in memory?

One of Us? How Facial and Symbolic Cues to Own- Versus Other-Race Membership Influence Access to Perceptual Awareness

Criterion shifting in an unfamiliar face-matching task: Effects of base rates, payoffs, and perceptual discriminability.

Impact of perceived interpersonal similarity on attention to the eyes of same-race and other-race faces

Attitudes Influence Implicit Racial Face Categorization in a Perceptual Task

Priming Global and Local Processing of Composite Faces: Revisiting the Processing-Bias Effect on Face Perception

The other-race effect and holistic processing across racial groups

A Robust Method of Measuring Other-Race and Other-Ethnicity Effects: the Cambridge Face Memory Test Format.

Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction.