Individual differences in perception of similarity of facial images and characteristics of oculomotor activity

The article presents the results of the cross-cultural study with participation of representatives of Russian and Tuva nationalities. Individual differences in subjective evaluation of magnitude of similarity of images forming a transitional series between Mongoloid and Caucasoid faces were revealed. The individual differences occurred mainly in relation to the target pairs in which one or both images were borderline in the transitional series, and which did not consist of images between which there was a large morphing step. These differences were associated with the features of oculomotor activity recorded with the help of an eye tracker during the perception of test images. The most significant differences in the duration and variance of visual fixations were found for two borderline images in the transitional series. Among Tuvan and Russian participants, the greatest individual differences in subjective similarity ratings were found for the same test pairs of facial images. In relation to these test pairs, general, opposite and specific for the Tuva and Russian samples trends were identified regarding indicators of oculomotor activity. The results indicate the constructivist nature of subjective assessment of similarity magnitude, and the connection of this process with characteristics of oculomotor activity.

1. Ananyeva K.I., Basul I.A., Kharitonov A.N. Izostaticheskie phiksatsionnye pattern pri zritelnom vospriyatii lits svoej I drugoj rasy // Eksperimentalnaya psychologiya. 2017. T. 10. № 4.
2. Barabanschikov V.A., Jegallo A.V. Aitreking: Metody registratsii dvijenij glaz i vzora cheloveka. Moskva: Institut psykhologii RAN, 2013.
3. Bruner G. Psykhologiya poznaniya. Moskva: Progrss, 1977.
4. Jegallo A.V. Spetsifika soderjaniya zritelnykh fiksatsij pri opoznanii emotsionalnykh ekspressij po vyrajeniyu litsa // Aitreking v psykhologitcheskoj nauke i praktike. M.: Kogito-Tsentr, 2016. S. 240—255.
5. Samoylenko E.S. Protsess sravneniya v systemakh poznaniya, obscheniya I lichnosti. Dissert. Dokt. psykchol. nauk. M., 2012. 523 s.
6. Samoylenko E.S., Melkumyan T.A. Individualnye razlichiya v protsessakh predmetno-orientirovannogo sravneniya // Eksperimentalnaya psykhologiya. 2014. T.7. #4. P. 83—99.
7. Samoylenko E.S., Melkumyan T.A. Individualnye razlitchiya v protsessakh predmetno-orientirovannogo sravneniya // Eksperimentalnaya Psykhologiya. 2014. T. 7. № 4. S. 83—99.
8. Bassok M., Medin D.L. Birds of a feather flock together: Similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli // Journal of Memory and Language. 1997. V. 36. Р. 311—336.
9. Estes Z., Hasson U. The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2004. V. 30. Р. 1082—1092.
10. Golonka S., Estes Z. Thematic Relations Affect Similarity Via Commonalities // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2009. V. 35. №6. P. 1454—1464.
11. Landis D., Silver C.A., Jones J.M., & Messick S. Level of proficiency and multidimensional viewpoints about problem similarity // Journal of Applied Psychology. 1967. V. 51. P. 216—222.
12. O’Hare D. Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis // Perception & Psychophysics. 1976. V. 20. № 6. P. 445—452.
13. R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/.
14. Simmons S., Estes Z. Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference // Cognition. 2008. V. 108. Р. 781—795.
15. Tversky A. Features of similarity // Psychological Review. 1977. V. 84. P. 327—352.