Facial expressions are inherently dynamic, and our visual system is sensitive to subtle changes in their temporal sequence. However, researchers often use dynamic morphs of photographs—simplified, linear representations of motion—to study the neural correlates of dynamic face perception. To explore the brain's sensitivity to natural facial motion, we constructed a novel dynamic face database using generative neural networks, trained on a verified set of video-recorded emotional expressions. The resulting deepfakes, consciously indistinguishable from videos, enabled us to separate biological motion from photorealistic form. Results showed that conventional dynamic morphs elicit distinct responses in the brain compared to videos and photos, suggesting they violate expectations (n400) and have reduced social salience (late positive potential). This suggests that dynamic morphs misrepresent facial dynamism, resulting in misleading insights about the neural and behavioural correlates of face perception. Deepfakes and videos elicited largely similar neural responses, suggesting they could be used as a proxy for real faces in vision research, where video recordings cannot be experimentally manipulated. And yet, despite being consciously undetectable as fake, deepfakes elicited an expectation violation response in the brain. This points to a neural sensitivity to naturalistic facial motion, beyond conscious awareness. Despite some differences in neural responses, the realism and manipulability of deepfakes make them a valuable asset for research where videos are unfeasible. Using these stimuli, we proposed a novel marker for the conscious perception of naturalistic facial motion – Frontal delta activity – which was elevated for videos and deepfakes, but not for photos or dynamic morphs.

Drawing on recent findings from evolutionary anthropology and neuroscience, professor Barton will lead us through the amazing story of the evolution of human cognition. Usingstatistical, phylogenetic analyses that tease apart the variation associated with different neural systems and due to different selection pressures, he will be addressing intriguing questions like ‘Why are there so many neurons in the cerebellum?’, ‘Is the neocortex the ‘intelligent’ bit of the brain?’, and ‘What explains that the recognition by humans of emotional expressions is disrupted by trancranial magnetic stimulation of the somatosensory cortex?’ Could, as professor Barton suggests, the cerebellum -modestly concealed beneath the volumetrically dominating neocortex and largely ignored- turn out to be the Cinderella of the study of brain evolution?

Perception can be strongly serially-dependent (i.e. biased toward previously seen stimuli). Recently, serial dependencies in perception were proposed as a mechanism for perceptual stability, increasing the apparent continuity of the complex environments we experience in everyday life. For example, stable scene perception can be actively achieved by the visual system through global serial dependencies, a special kind of serial dependence between summary statistical representations. Serial dependence occurs also between emotional expressions, but it is highly selective for the same identity. Overall, these results further support the notion of serial dependence as a global, highly specialized, and purposeful mechanism. However, serial dependence could also be a deleterious phenomenon in unnatural or unpredictable situations, such as visual search in radiological scans, biasing current judgments toward previous ones even when accurate and unbiased perception is needed. For example, observers make consistent perceptual errors when classifying a tumor- like shape on the current trial, seeing it as more similar to the shape presented on the previous trial. In a separate localization test, observers make consistent errors when reporting the perceived position of an objects on the current trial, mislocalizing it toward the position in the preceding trial. Taken together, these results show two opposite sides of serial dependence; it can be a beneficial mechanism which promotes perceptual stability, but at the same time a deleterious mechanism which impairs our percept when fine recognition is needed.