The Multiple Image Advantage in Face Identity Recognition Relies on the Formation of Facial Representation

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1689

Abstract

Abstract:

Presenting multiple face images of the same person can significantly enhance participants' recognition performance for face identity. However, the cognitive mechanisms underlying this performance improvement through multiple images remain unclear. This study consists of two experiments. Experiment 1A used a face-matching paradigm, presenting one, two, or three faces either simultaneously or sequentially, and measured participants' discriminability under different conditions. The results showed: (1) Discriminability improved with an increasing number of images only under the sequential presentation condition (revealing the Multiple Image Advantage, MIA); (2) When presenting three face images, discriminability under the sequential condition was higher than under the simultaneous matching condition. Experiment 1B controlled the face presentation duration and replicated the above results. Experiment 2, building on Experiment 1A, inverted the faces to disrupt the integration process of facial representation. The results showed: (3) Regardless of whether the study images were single or multiple, discriminability under the sequential condition was lower than under the simultaneous condition; (4) No MIA was found in either task. In conclusion, the experimental results suggest that the MIA in face identity discrimination originates from the formation of facial representation, a process that requires the involvement of memory.

Key words: Multiple Image Advantage (MIA), Facial Representation, Face Matching, Face Recognition

FENG Junye, WANG Zhe, SUN Yu-Hao P. (2025). The Multiple Image Advantage in Face Identity Recognition Relies on the Formation of Facial Representation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(10), 1689-1700.

Figures/Tables 10

Figure 1. Example of face material layout (from left to right: Block1 to Block3).

Figure 2. Flowchart of a single trial in the simultaneous matching task (using 1-to-3 matching as an example).

Figure 3. Flowchart of a single trial in the sequential matching task (using 3-to-1 matching as an example).

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Experiment 1A (M ± SE)

	Discriminability (d')		Criterion (c)		*Reaction Time (ms)**
	Simultaneous	Sequential	Simultaneous	Sequential	Simultaneous	Sequential
1 Image	1.26 (0.08)	1.23 (0.08)	?0.13 (0.06)	?0.30 (0.06)	2751 (187)	6558 (183)
2 Images	1.45 (0.09)	1.53 (0.09)	?0.38 (0.06)	?0.57 (0.06)	2904 (167)	6473 (162)
3 Images	1.43 (0.10)	1.74 (0.10)	?0.62 (0.07)	?0.65 (0.07)	2579 (127)	6257 (124)

Figure 4. Discriminability under different presentation modes across image quantity conditions. Note: * p < 0.05

Figure 5. Flowchart of a single trial in the simultaneous matching task (Experiment 1B).

Figure 6. Flowchart of a single trial in the simultaneous matching task (Inverted).

Figure 7. Flowchart of a single trial in the sequential matching task (Inverted)

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Experiment 2 (M ± SE)

	Discriminability (d′)		Criterion (c)
	Simultaneous	Sequential	Simultaneous	Sequential
1 Image	0.92(0.08)	0.66(0.08)	?0.50(0.06)	?0.30(0.06)
3 Images	1.07(0.09)	0.83(0.09)	?0.83(0.09)	?0.57(0.09)

Figure 8. Discriminability index under different presentation modes across image quantity conditions (Inverted Faces).
Note: * p < 0.05 (Main effect of Image Number)

References 47

[1]	Andrews, S., Jenkins, R., Cursiter, H., & Burton, A. M. (2015). Telling faces together: Learning new faces through exposure to multiple instances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(10), 2041-2050.
[2]	Baker, K. A., & Mondloch, C. J. (2019). Two sides of face learning: Improving between-identity discrimination while tolerating more within-person variability in appearance. Perception, 48(11), 1124-1145. doi: 10.1177/0301006619867862 pmid: 31483735
[3]	Baker, K. A., & Mondloch, C. J. (2023). Unfamiliar face matching ability predicts the slope of face learning. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5248.
[4]	Baker, K. A., Laurence, S., & Mondloch, C. J. (2017). How does a newly encountered face become familiar? The effect of within- person variability on adults’ and children’s perception of identity. Cognition, 161, 19-30.
[5]	Baker, K. A., Stabile, V. J., & Mondloch, C. J. (2023). Stable individual differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from simultaneous and sequential matching tasks. Cognition, 232, 105333.
[6]	Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40(5), 625-627. pmid: 21882725
[7]	Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 339-360.
[8]	Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J., & White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51(3), 256-284. pmid: 16198327
[9]	Davis, E. E., Matthews, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2021). Ensemble coding of facial identity is not refined by experience: Evidence from other‐race and inverted faces. British Journal of Psychology, 112(1), 265-281.
[10]	Devue, C., & de Sena, S. (2023). The impact of stability in appearance on the development of facial representations. Cognition, 239, 105569.
[11]	Dowsett, A. J., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Face learning with multiple images leads to fast acquisition of familiarity for specific individuals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 1-10.
[12]	Dunn, J. D., Kemp, R. I., & White, D. (2018). Search templates that incorporate within-face variation improve visual search for faces. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 37.
[13]	Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29(2), 159-170. pmid: 10820599
[14]	Honig, T., Shoham, A., & Yovel, G. (2022). Perceptual similarity modulates effects of learning from variability on face recognition. Vision Research, 201, 108128.
[15]	Itier, R. J., Alain, C., Sedore, K., & McIntosh, A. R. (2007). Early face processing specificity: It's in the eyes! Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1815-1826. pmid: 17958484
[16]	Jones, S. P., Dwyer, D. M., & Lewis, M. B. (2017). The utility of multiple synthesized views in the recognition of unfamiliar faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 906-918.
[17]	Kramer, R. S., Hardy, S. C., & Ritchie, K. L. (2020). Searching for faces in crowd chokepoint videos. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 343-356. doi: 10.1002/acp.3620
[18]	Kramer, R. S., & Reynolds, M. G. (2018). Unfamiliar face matching with frontal and profile views. Perception, 47(4), 414-431. doi: 10.1177/0301006618756809 pmid: 29402154
[19]	Kramer, R. S., & Ritchie, K. L. (2016). Disguising superman: How glasses affect unfamiliar face matching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 841-845.
[20]	Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(2), 513-536.
[21]	Li, X. M., & Li, H. F. (2018). The relationships between mental imagery, perception and memory from the perspectives of representation and cognitive process. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(3), 520-525.
[22]	Longmore, C. A., Santos, I. M., Silva, C. F., Hall, A., Faloyin, D., & Little, E. (2017). Image dependency in the recognition of newly learnt faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 863-873.
[23]	Matthews, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2018). Finding an unfamiliar face in a line‐up: Viewing multiple images of the target is beneficial on target‐present trials but costly on target‐absent trials. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 758-776. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12301 pmid: 29658990
[24]	Matthews, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2022). Learning faces from variability: Four-and five-year-olds differ from older children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 213, 105259.
[25]	Matthews, C. M., Ritchie, K. L., Laurence, S., & Mondloch, C. J. (2024). Multiple images captured from a single encounter do not promote face learning. Perception, 53(5-6), 299-316.
[26]	Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865-876.
[27]	Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 364-372.
[28]	Megreya, A. M., White, D., & Burton, A. M. (2011). The other-race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1473-1483.
[29]	Menon, N., Kemp, R. I., & White, D. (2018). More than a sum of parts: Robust face recognition by integrating variation. Royal Society Open Science, 5(5), 172381.
[30]	Menon, N., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2015a). Variation in photos of the same face drives improvements in identity verification. Perception, 44(11), 1332-1341.
[31]	Menon, N., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2015b). Identity-level representations affect unfamiliar face matching performance in sequential but not simultaneous tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1777-1793.
[32]	Mileva, M., & Burton, A. M. (2019). Face search in CCTV surveillance. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4, 37.
[33]	Mileva, V. R., Hancock, P. J. B., & Langton, S. R. H. (2021). Visual search performance in ‘CCTV’ and mobile phone-like video footage. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 63.
[34]	Murphy, J., Ipser, A., Gaigg, S. B., & Cook, R. (2015). Exemplar variance supports robust learning of facial identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 577-581. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000049 pmid: 25867504
[35]	Peng, S., Kuang, B., & Hu, P. (2019). Memory of ensemble representation was independent of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 228. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00228 pmid: 30800092
[36]	Pitcher, D., Caulfield, R., & Burton, A. M. (2023). Provoked overt recognition in acquired prosopagnosia using multiple different images of famous faces. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 40(3-4), 158-166.
[37]	Ritchie, K. L., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Learning faces from variability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 897-905.
[38]	Ritchie, K. L., Kramer, R. S., Mileva, M., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2021). Multiple-image arrays in face matching tasks with and without memory. Cognition, 211, 104632.
[39]	Ritchie, K. L., Mireku, M. O., & Kramer, R. S. (2020). Face averages and multiple images in a live matching task. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 92-102.
[40]	Sandford, A., & Ritchie, K. L. (2021). Unfamiliar face matching, within-person variability, and multiple-image arrays. Visual Cognition, 29(3), 143-157.
[41]	Tanaka, J., Giles, M., Kremen, S., & Simon, V. (1998). Mapping attractor fields in face space: The atypicality bias in face recognition. Cognition, 68(3), 199-220. pmid: 9852665
[42]	Tanaka, J. W., Kaiser, M. D., Hagen, S., & Pierce, L. J. (2014). Losing face: Impaired discrimination of featural and configural information in the mouth region of an inverted face. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1000-1014.
[43]	Wang, Z., Ni, H., Feng, D., Yan, L., & Sun, Y.-H. (2023). Regional asynchrony and eye region-specificity in part-based processing and holistic processing during face familiarization. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 861-876. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00861
[44]	White, D., Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Kemp, R. I. (2014). Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 166-173.
[45]	Xu, B., & Tanaka, J. W. (2013). Does face inversion qualitatively change face processing: An eye movement study using a face change detection task. Journal of Vision, 13(2), 22-22.
[46]	Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141-145.
[47]	Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2018). Are we face experts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 100-110.