Recognition as a function of available spatial resolution

Result 1: Humans can recognize familiar faces in very low-resolution images.

Result 2: The ability to tolerate degradations increases with familiarity.

Result 3: High-frequency information by itself is insufficient for good face recognition performance.

The nature of processing: Piecemeal versus holistic

Result 4: Facial features are processed holistically.

Result 5: Of the different facial features, eyebrows are among the most important for recognition.

Result 6: The important configural relationships appear to be independent across the width and height dimensions. The nature of cues used:

Pigmentation, shape and motion

Result 7: Face-shape appears to be encoded in a slightly caricatured manner.

Result 8: Prolonged face viewing can lead to highlevel aftereffects, which suggest prototype-based encoding.

Result 9: Pigmentation cues are at least as important as shape cues.

Result 10: Color cues play a significant role, especially when shape cues are degraded.

Result 11: Contrast polarity inversion dramatically impairs recognition performance, possibly due to compromised ability to use pigmentation cues.

Result 12: Illumination changes influence generalization.

Result 13: View-generalization appears to be mediated by temporal association.

Result 14: Motion of faces appears to facilitate subsequent recognition.

Developmental progression

Result 15: The visual system starts with a rudimentary preference for face-like patterns.

Result 16: The visual system progresses from a piecemeal to a holistic strategy over the first several years of life.

Neural underpinnings

Result 17: The human visual system appears to devote specialized neural resources for face perception.

Result 18: Latency of responses to faces in inferotemporal (IT) cortex is about 120 ms, suggesting a largely feedforward computation.

Result 19: Facial identity and expression might be processed by separate systems

For more information look at the article in attachment.