The determinants of consciousness of human faces

Abstract

From what we see to what we hear and from how we feel to what we think, our conscious experiences play an important role in shaping our lives. Because we become aware of only a small subset of our ongoing cognitive and perceptual processes1,2,3,4, explicating the determinants of conscious experiences is a crucial step towards understanding human behaviour. Here we develop a computational data-driven approach for studying the determinants of consciousness and we use it to investigate what is arguably the most important social stimulus: the human face5,6,7. In six experiments with 174 participants, we used this method to uncover a reliable dimension that determines the speed with which different faces reach conscious awareness. This dimension correlates strongly with the perceived power/dominance of a face. We show that the dimension cannot be explained by low-level visual factors and does not describe conscious processing, thereby suggesting that it captures the process of prioritization for consciousness. By visualizing the dimension, we are able to produce a vivid depiction of what unconscious processes prioritize for conscious processing. We propose this method as a means to study the contents and neural correlates of conscious experiences across various domains.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Experimental paradigm and examples of stimuli.
Fig. 2: Visualization of the priority dimension.
Fig. 3: Correlations with the two summary dimensions of judgements of social traits.
Fig. 4: Experiment 3 results.

Change history

  • 19 January 2018

    In the version of this Letter originally published, the image of the face in Fig. 1c was mistakenly visible but should have been blended into the pattern. This has now been corrected.

References

  1. 1.

    Baars, B. J. In the theatre of consciousness. Global workspace theory, a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud. 4, 292–309 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Erdelyi, M. H. A new look at the new look: perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychol. Rev. 81, 1–25 (1974).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mack, A. & Rock, I. Inattentional Blindness 33 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Simons, D. J. & Rensink, R. A. Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 16–20 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Axelrod, V., Bar, M. & Rees, G. Exploring the unconscious using faces. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 35–45 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jack, R. E. & Schyns, P. G. Toward a social psychophysics of face communication. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 269–297 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Oosterhof, N. N. & Todorov, A. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11087–11092 (2008).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R. & Simons, D. J. What you see is what you set: sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychol. Rev. 112, 217–242 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stoerig, P. & Cowey, A. Blindsight in man and monkey. Brain 120, 535–559 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gazzaniga, M. S. Forty-five years of split-brain research and still going strong. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 653–659 (2005).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Driver, J. & Vuilleumier, P. Perceptual awareness and its loss in unilateral neglect and extinction. Cognition 79, 39–88 (2001).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tsuchiya, N. & Koch, C. Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1096–1101 (2005).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jiang, Y., Costello, P. & He, S. Processing of invisible stimuli: advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychol. Sci. 18, 349–355 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Maurer, D., Grand, R. L. & Mondloch, C. J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 255–260 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A. & Gobbini, M. I. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 223–233 (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J. & Chun, M. M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci. 17, 4302–4311 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Freiwald, W. A. & Tsao, D. Y. Functional compartmentalization and viewpoint generalization within the macaque face-processing system. Science 330, 845–851 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stein, T., Peelen, M. V. & Sterzer, P. Adults’ awareness of faces follows newborns’ looking preferences. PLoS ONE 6, e29361 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Zhou, G., Zhang, L., Liu, J., Yang, J. & Qu, Z. Specificity of face processing without awareness. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 408–412 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yang, E., Zald, D. H. & Blake, R. Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. Emotion 7, 882–886 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Chen, Y.-C. & Yeh, S.-L. Look into my eyes and I will see you: unconscious processing of human gaze. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 1703–1710 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Stein, T., Senju, A., Peelen, M. V. & Sterzer, P. Eye contact facilitates awareness of faces during interocular suppression. Cognition 119, 307–311 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gobbini, M. I. et al. Prioritized detection of personally familiar faces. PLoS ONE 8, e66620 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Stewart, L. H. et al. Unconscious evaluation of faces on social dimensions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141, 715–727 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Todorov, A., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D. H. J. & Said, C. P. Data-driven methods for modeling social perception. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 5, 775–791 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G. & Nakayama, K. Fitting the mind to the world: face adaptation and attractiveness after effects. Psychol. Sci. 14, 558–566 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dotsch, R., Hassin, R. R. & Todorov, A. Statistical learning shapes face evaluation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0001 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Adolphs, R., Nummenmaa, L., Todorov, A. & Haxby, J. V. Data-driven approaches in the investigation of social perception. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 371, 20150367 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Neri, P., Parker, A. J. & Blakemore, C. Probing the human stereoscopic system with reverse correlation. Nature 401, 695–698 (1999).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Tadin, D., Lappin, J. & Blake, R. Fine temporal properties of center-surround interactions in motion revealed by reverse correlation. J. Neurosci. 26, 2614–2622 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gosselin, F. & Schyns, P. G. Superstitious perceptions reveal properties of internal representations. Psychol. Sci. 14, 505–509 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86, 420–428 (1979).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Stojanoski, B. & Cusack, R. Time to wave good-bye to phase scrambling: creating controlled scrambled images using diffeomorphic transformations. J. Vis. 14, 6 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bourdev, L. & Malik, J. Poselets: body part detectors trained using 3D human pose annotations. In 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision 1365–1372 (IEEE, New York, NY, 2009).

  35. 35.

    Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E. & Gallant, J. L. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature 532, 453–458 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Éthier-Majcher, C., Joubert, S. & Gosselin, F. Reverse correlating trustworthy faces in young and older adults. Front. Psychol. 4, 592 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jack, R. E., Caldara, R. & Schyns, P. G. Internal representations reveal cultural diversity in expectations of facial expressions of emotion. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141, 19–25 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brainard, D. H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sklar, A. Y. et al. Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 19614–19619 (2012).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation (grant no. 2013417 to R.R.H. and A.T.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.A., A.Y.S. R.D. A.T. and R.R.H. developed the main ideas of this research programme. Y.A. and A.Y.S. programmed the experiments. Y.A. ran the experiments and analysed data. R.D. contributed analysis methods and scripts. Y.A. and R.R.H. wrote the manuscript, and R.D., A.Y.S. and T.D. provided extensive feedback on the writing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yaniv Abir or Ran R. Hassin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0291-2.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary results, Supplementary methods, Supplementary references, Supplementary Figures 1–2

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Video

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Video

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abir, Y., Sklar, A.Y., Dotsch, R. et al. The determinants of consciousness of human faces. Nat Hum Behav 2, 194–199 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0266-3

Download citation

Further reading