Previous work looking at individual differences in face identity processing (FIP) has found that most commonly used lab-based performance assessments are unfortunately not sufficiently sensitive on their own for measuring performance in both the upper and lower tails of the general population simultaneously. So more recently, researchers have begun incorporating multiple testing procedures into their assessments. Still, though, the growing consensus seems to be that at the individual level, there is quite a bit of variability between test scores. The overall consequence of this is that extreme scores will still occur simply by chance in large enough samples. To mitigate this issue, our recent work has developed measures of intra-individual FIP consistency to refine selection of those with superior abilities (i.e. from the upper tail). For starters, we assessed consistency of face matching and recognition in neurotypical controls, and compared them to a sample of SRs. In terms of face matching, we demonstrated psychophysically that SRs show significantly greater consistency than controls in exploiting spatial frequency information than controls. Meanwhile, we showed that SRs’ recognition of faces is highly related to memorability for identities, yet effectively unrelated among controls. So overall, at the high end of the FIP spectrum, consistency can be a useful tool for revealing both qualitative and quantitative individual differences. Finally, in conjunction with collaborators from the Rheinland-Pfalz Police, we developed a pair of bespoke work samples to get bias-free measures of intraindividual consistency in current law enforcement personnel. Officers with higher composite scores on a set of 3 challenging FIP tests tended to show higher consistency, and vice versa. Overall, this suggests that not only is consistency a reasonably good marker of superior FIP abilities, but could present important practical benefits for personnel selection in many other domains of expertise.

There is a surprising consistency in the images we remember and forget – across observers, certain images are intrinsically more memorable than others in spite of our diverse individual experiences. The perception of images at different memorability levels also results in stereotyped patterns in visual and mnemonic regions in the brain, regardless of an individual’s actual memory for that item. In this talk, Dr. Bainbridge will discuss our current neuroscientific understanding of how memorability is represented in patterns in the brain, potentially serving as a signal for how stimulus information is prioritized for eventual memory encoding.

State-of-the-art machine vision models can predict human recognition memory for complex scenes with astonishing accuracy. In this talk I present work that investigated how memorable scenes are actually remembered and experienced by human observers. We found that memorable scenes were recognized largely based on recollection of specific episodic details but also based on familiarity for an entire scene. I thus highlight current limitations in machine vision models emulating human recognition memory, with promising opportunities for future research. Moreover, we were interested in what observers specifically remember about complex scenes. We thus considered the functional role of eye-movements as a window into the content of memories, particularly when observers recollected specific information about a scene. We found that when observers formed a memory representation that they later recollected (compared to scenes that only felt familiar), the overall extent of exploration was broader, with a specific subset of fixations clustered around later to-be-recollected scene content, irrespective of the memorability of a scene. I discuss the critical role that our viewing behavior plays in visual memory formation and retrieval and point to potential implications for machine vision models predicting the content of human memories.