ArticlePsyCh journal2022
Human faces and face-like stimuli are more memorable.
Article in PsyCh journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting visual object memory through natural eye movement topography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Gaze behavior when looking at paintings may predict autistic traits.PsyCh journal · 2025Article
- Do subtle cultural differences sculpt face pareidolia?Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Face pareidolia in male schizophrenia.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Human faces and face-like stimuli are more memorable.PsyCh journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have previously suggested a distinction in the brain processes governing biological and artifactual stimuli. One of the best examples of the biological category consists of human faces, the perception of which appears to be determined by inherited mechanisms or ones rapidly acquired after birth. In extending this work, we inquire here whether there is a higher memorability for images of human faces and whether memorability declines with increasing departure from human faces; if so, the implication would add to the growing evidence of differences in the processing of biological versus artifactual stimuli. To do so, we used images and memorability scores from a large data set of 58,741 images to compare the relative memorability of the following image categories: real human faces versus buildings, and extending this to a comparison of real human faces with five image categories that differ in their grade of resemblance to a real human face. Our findings show that, in general, when we compare the biological category of faces to the artifactual category of buildings, the former is more memorable. Furthermore, there is a gradient in which the more an image resembles a real human face the more memorable it is. Thus, the previously identified differences in biological and artifactual images extend to the field of memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.