Identity information content depends on the type of facial movement.
Facial movements convey information about many social cues, including identity. However, how much information about a person's identity is conveyed by different kinds of facial movements is unknown. We addressed this question using a recent motion capture and animation system, with which we animated one avatar head with facial movements of three types: (1) emotional, (2) emotional in social interaction and (3) conversational, all recorded from several actors. In a delayed match-to-sample task, observers were best at matching actor identity across conversational movements, worse with emotional movements in social interactions, and at chance level with emotional facial expressions. Model observers performing this task showed similar performance profiles, indicating that performance variation was due to differences in information content, rather than processing. Our results suggest that conversational facial movements transmit more dynamic identity information than emotional facial expressions, thus suggesting different functional roles and processing mechanisms for different types of facial motion.
Department of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.|Université de Toulouse, Centre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.|CNRS, Faculté de Médecine de Purpan, UMR 5549, Toulouse, France.
Katharina
K
Dobs
Department of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Isabelle
I
Bülthoff
Department of Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.|Division of Medical Psychology and Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Johannes
J
Schultz
J Speech Hear Res. 1996 Dec;39(6):1159-70
8959601
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 May;59(5):801-8
16608747
Psychol Sci. 2005 May;16(5):403-10
15869701
Psychol Sci. 2005 Mar;16(3):184-9
15733197
J Nonverbal Behav. 2009 Mar 1;33(1):17-34
19554208
Vision Res. 2003 Aug;43(18):1921-36
12831755
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Mar;10(3):173-85
19229240
Br J Psychol. 1986 Aug;77 ( Pt 3):305-27
3756376
Curr Biol. 2014 Mar 31;24(7):738-43
24656830
Percept Psychophys. 2002 Feb;64(2):220-9
12013377
Vision Res. 2014 Jul;100:78-87
24784699
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):261-266
12039608
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Nov 14;8:920
25452722
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015 ;68(9):1832-43
25687732
Curr Biol. 2015 Jul 20;25(14):R621-34
26196493
J Neurosci Methods. 2002 Apr 15;115(2):137-43
11992665
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):905-14
17683236
Front Psychol. 2014 Jun 24;5:633
25009517
Curr Biol. 2014 Jan 20;24(2):187-92
24388852
J Vis. 2009 Dec 07;9(13):7.1-17
20055540
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32321
22438875
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 13;6:255
25821441
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jun;24(6):957-65
23620549
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 Aug;55:536-46
26067903
Mem Cognit. 1999 Nov;27(6):974-85
10586574
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jun;4(6):223-233
10827445
PLoS One. 2009 May 20;4(5):e5625
19462006
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):843-50
18552843
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2003 Mar;2(1):15-46
17715597
Curr Biol. 2003 Sep 30;13(19):1709-14
14521837
Curr Biol. 2001 Jun 5;11(11):880-5
11516651