ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
The effect of mask use on cross-race face perception: a simultaneous EEG and eye-tracking study.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While people are often experts in perceiving and categorizing faces into meaningful social categories (i.e., race), there are suboptimal scenarios such as mask use that may impair face processing. Here we examined how mask use may differentially impact own- and other-race face processing in social categorization, and the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms using simultaneous eye movement and EEG recording. We found that mask use made participants' face scanning patterns more eyes-focused and consistent, and reduced the differences in both eye movement pattern and early attention-related ERP component P1 between viewing own- and other-race faces. Moreover, mask use did not change how people categorize biracial morphed faces, or the advantage in categorization speed of other-race faces. These results suggest that when perceiving masked faces, information from the eye region may be sufficient for social categorization, and that race-based social categorizations can be impervious to mask use. Interestingly, we found that when viewing other-race faces, where people have less perceptual expertise, those who show more consistent face scanning patterns have more efficient processing of masked faces. These findings have important implications for cross-race face perception, especially when face perception condition becomes suboptimal. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: As mask use has become a common practice in response to respiratory virus outbreaks, it has inadvertently altered both health practices and the complex dynamics of social interaction. In a world that values diversity and cross-racial interactions, understanding how masks influence our cognitive processes during cross-race face perception is not just timely but vital. Given this context, we examined the effect of mask use on race categorization, by systematically investigating eye movement behavior, and neural representations of own versus other-race faces, and how these mask-induced changes are associated with each other. By utilizing simultaneous eye movement and EEG recording, our study reveals that the eye region can significantly influence social categorization, suggesting that race-based categorizations persist even in the presence of masks. Interestingly, we found that for other-race faces with which people have less perceptual expertise, those who adjust to a more consistent face scanning pattern for masked faces have more efficient processing of masked faces. This highlights the importance of individuals' visual routine adaptability when the viewing condition is not optimal. Though the current research is called by the demand for COVID-19, our findings can be generalized to a broader context and enhance our understanding of human visual and social cognition.
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.