Research in face recognition has tended to focus on discriminating between individuals, or “telling people apart.” It has recently become clear that it is also necessary to understand how images of the same person can vary, or “telling people together.” Learning a new face, and tracking its representation as it changes from unfamiliar to familiar, involves an abstraction of the variability in different images of that person's face. Here, we present an application of principal components analysis computed across different photos of the same person. We demonstrate that people vary in systematic ways, and that this variability is idiosyncratic—the dimensions of variability in one face do not generalize well to another. Learning a new face therefore entails learning how that face varies. We present evidence for this proposal and suggest that it provides an explanation for various effects in face recognition. We conclude by making a number of testable predictions derived from this framework.

Face masks present a new challenge to face identification (here matching) and emotion recognition in Western cultures. Here, we present the results of three experiments that test the effect of masks, and also the effect of sunglasses (an occlusion that individuals tend to have more experienced with) on (i) familiar face matching, (ii) unfamiliar face matching and (iii) emotion categorization. Occlusion reduced accuracy in all three tasks, with most errors in the mask condition; however, there was little difference in performance for faces in masks compared with faces in sunglasses. Super-recognizers, people who are highly skilled at matching unconcealed faces, were impaired by occlusion, but at the group level, performed with higher accuracy than controls on all tasks. Results inform psychology theory with implications for everyday interactions, security and policing in a mask-wearing society.

First impressions of social traits, such as attractiveness, from faces are often claimed to be made automatically, given their speed and reliability. However, speed of processing is only one aspect of automaticity. Here we address a further aspect, asking whether impression formation is mandatory. Mandatory formation requires that impressions are formed about social traits even when this is task-irrelevant, and that once formed, these impressions are difficult to inhibit. In two experiments, participants learned what new people looked like for the purpose of future identification, from sets of images high or low in attractiveness. They then rated middle-attractiveness images of each person, for attractiveness. Even though instructed to rate the specific images, not the people, their ratings were biased by the attractiveness of the learned images. A third control experiment, with participants rating names, demonstrated that participants in Experiments 1 and 2 were not simply rating the people, rather than the specific images as instructed. These results show that the formation of attractiveness impressions from faces is mandatory, thus broadening the evidence for automaticity of facial impressions. The mandatory formation of impressions is likely to have an important impact in real-world situations such as online dating sites.

At suprathreshold levels, detection and awareness of visual stimuli are typically synonymous in nonclinical populations. But following postgeniculate lesions, some patients may perform above chance in forced-choice detection paradigms, while reporting not to see the visual events presented within their blind field. This phenomenon, termed “blindsight,” is intriguing because it demonstrates a dissociation between detection and perception. It is possible, however, for a blindsight patient to have some “feeling” of the occurrence of an event without seeing per se. This is termed blindsight type II to distinguish it from the type I, defined as discrimination capability in the total absence of any acknowledged awareness. Here we report on a well-studied patient, D.B., whose blindsight capabilities have been previously documented. We have found that D.B. is capable of detecting visual patterns defined by changes in luminance (first-order gratings) and those defined by contrast modulation of textured patterns (textured gratings; second-order stimuli) while being aware of the former but reporting no awareness of the latter. We have systematically investigated the parameters that could lead to visual awareness of the patterns and show that mechanisms underlying the subjective reports of visual awareness rely primarily on low spatial frequency, first-order spatial components of the image.