Memoire Online - Degree of familiarity, inversion effect and quality of sleep through the type of images used in face recognition

Cindy Schupbach University of Geneva

3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Face-matching: what results can we obtain between inter-clinical populations and their relatives? View project

Cassandre project : Where is the link between reality and fiction through hallucination and delightful ideas? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cindy Schupbach on 22 July 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LABORATOIRE EPSYLON, E.A. 4556
Equipe : « Evolution des déterminants psychologiques de la santé et du handicap selon les
âges de la vie -EVOLVE - »
Prs MC GELY-NARGEOT et S. RAFFARD : Responsables

DÉPARTEMENT D E PSYCHOLOGIE
Mention : « Psychologie Clinique, Psychopathologie et Psychologie de la Santé »
Parcours : Neuropsychologie Clinique, Psychopathologie Cognitive, Adulte, Personne Âgée »
Pr. MC GELY-NARGEOT : Directrice de la Mention et des Etudes
Pr. S. RAFFARD : Coordinateur Recherche Parcours
Dr. S. BAYARD (MCF) : Coordinatrice Recherche M1
A. GAYRAL (MC associé) : Coordinatrice Pédagogique et Responsable des Stages

DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY, INVERSION EFFECT AND QUALITY OF SLEEP THROUGH THE TYPE OF IMAGES USED IN FACE RECOGNITION

Through the scientific literature on face recognition, we can only conclude that experimental biases exist and influence the collection of data, which in turn detracts from the credibility of our results. In the face of this, more and more studies seek to make a certain ecological value and to ensure the validity of the generalities that result from it. Finally, this study makes it possible to see whether differences between the two types of images used (natural and standardized) could be observed with regard to the recognition of faces through the inversion effect and the degree of familiarity. It was therefore a face-to-face matching expected participants, recruited within a normal population, aged 18 to 30 years, as well as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. In this task, the participants had to recognize as quickly and correctly as possible the faces presented to them (their own face, that of the friend or those of the unknown) by pressing the two keys of the indicated keyboard. Finally, it is the faces of unknowns who are most affected by the type of images used, being more quickly or better recognized through standardized images. Compared to the degree of familiarity, his own face and that of the friends are mostly faster and better recognized than those of the unknown, but no significance is found between his face and that of the friends that it is in normal condition or reversed. The inversion effect is rarely present except for the faces of unknowns under certain conditions. Against all expectations, the poor quality of sleep does not significantly affect the recognition of faces except for natural images not match and reversed. Further studies may be considered.

I. INTRODUCTION

The principle purpose of this study is to better understand the recognition and treatment of faces likewise their composants, which can possibly influence them and at what point. But particularly if the treatment or recognition of his own face is different depending on we use ambient images or standardized, an idea of Bortolon Catherine basing on a precedent work (Bortolon, Lorieux, Raffard, 2017). Know and realize if we finally do it the right way in order to conduct our studies on this vast field whose main stimulus is the face. The problematic that we are discussing here is sensitive : How can we give ecological validity to what we are doing in our research practices? The objective will not be completely fulfilled, but will encourage a different vision of what future experiments on this topic could have, which have already begun to appear.

It's accepted that the recorded faces in memory involve assemblies of cells located in both hemispheres (Baird & Burton, 2008), but is there a dominant hemisphere when a face is recognized ? This is what many researchers have asked themselves. Some have concluded that the self-representation, which allows the recognition of one's own face, is not reduced to a particular hemisphere, but is available for the both cerebral hemispheres independently (Uddin, Rayman, Zaidel, 2005). The corpus callosum, affording the transfers between the hemisphere, would be necessary for the different representation of the self (Uddin, 2011). Other authors have found a dissociation between self-perception and the perception of others with the dominant left hemisphere for self-recognition and the dominant right hemisphere for the recognition of other faces (Brady, Campbell, Flaherty, 2004). Reverse thinking also exists: the recognition of the self will be in the right hemisphere (Keenan et al., 1999), as well as the treatment of self-related material (Keenan, Ganis, Freund, Pascual-Leone, 2000). But the main brain regions specifically involved in facial recognition of themselves would be: the right limbic system with the hippocampus; insula and cingulate anterior, middle right temporal lobe, left lower parietal lobe and left prefrontal regions compared to partner recognition that only activates the right part of the insula (Kircher et al., 2000). However, the measures are dependent of the means employed and may involve different neuronal signatures (Butler, Mattingley, Cunnington, Suddendorf, 2012) as evidenced by the divergences within the studies (Kaplan, Aziz-Zadeh, Uddin, Iacobini, 2008; Uddin, Kaplan, Molnar-Szakacs, Zaidel, Iacoboni, 2005).

Recognizing the old self-representation and its current facial appearance involves treatments in distinct neural circuits. The representation of the current self image is maintained and updated through plastic processes inside the cerebral areas, specialized in the treatment of faces, but not specifically of its own face (Apps, Tjadura-Jiménez, Turley, Tsakiris, 2013). It would contain « strong and configural and featural components » (Keyes, 2012). A network of common representations between the self and others seems to be possible and the passing from one to the other can be realized through self-knowledge and the agency (Dcety & Sommerville, 2003) and would influence the structural encoding step (Caharel, Fiori, Rebaï, Bernard, Lalonde, 2006). It is not unthinkable that other components are important, but not yet detected. Nevertheless, the statuts of self-representation as special hasn't yet find a consensus within the scientific literature and needs to be clarified (Gillihan & Farah, 2005).

Generally accepted in the scientific literature, we discern two main types of facial treatment: featural processing and configural processing. The first refers to the possibility for the human being to treat a stimulus by stroke, especially when one perceives an object. The second refers to any phenomenon that involves the perception of the relationships between the different components of a stimulus such as a face. This type of treatment can be divided into three types: the first-order relations ; the hollistic processes and the second-order relations. The first-order relations allows to detect that a stimulus represents a face and not an animal based on the fact that all the faces are composed in the same way, of a basic configuration with certain characteristics : two eyes above a nose, which is above a mouth. This is a crucial step: the other two types of treatment appear only if a face is perceived as a face. In the second type, the person will assemble, interconnect the different facial features in order to form a set. It will now be very difficult to consider the characteristics of the face independently. The latter type reflects the spatial distance between the different internal features of the face, such as the distance between the eyes, which in a way differentiates individuals from one another. For some authors, the inversion effect would destroy the ability to detect the second-order relationships (Sergent, 1984), but would have less effect on the isolated characteristics (Rhodes, Brake, Atkinson, 1993), as well as on first-order relations while others think it interferes with all types of configural processing (Maurer, Le Grand, Mondloch, 2002).

In contrast, the inversion effect (Yin, 1969) shows that faces presented upside down, compared to other non-facial stimuli, are less well recognized and are treated more slowly than faces presented on the right face. A fall in performance is then observed and reflects the inability of

the person to integrate the features of the stimulus into a configurational/hollistic representation in contrast to the treatment of objects, which occurs during traits by traits treatment by traits (analytic processing). The faces presented upside-down would therefore be treated on the basis of individual characteristics only and no longer on the sum of the relationships of the individual characteristics (Thompson, 1980). It is in this sense that he proposes that faces are special stimuli in comparison with other stimuli, which have no inversion effect and are probably treated differently. However, one study shows that it would be possible to develop an inversion effect for one class of stimuli if one is expert. This vulnerability to inversion makes it possible to consider the faces differently: they would not be as unique and the recognition of dogs by an expert would be comparable to the recognition of the faces. The author explain : "With expertise comes the ability to exploit" the second-order relational properties "that individualize members of stimulus classes" (Diamond & Carey, 1986).

An article (Besson et al., 2017) suggests a possible overlap between the types of configural processing discussed above and three types of levels: a level of categorization (detection of human faces), a level of familiarity (recognizing famous people in relation to less familiar ones) and detecting a person in a crowd. More precisely, he established a hierarchical experience of the treatments and established their differences: the categorization of feminine faces would be a first step whereas the individual recognition of faces and the recognition of familiar faces will follow. The categorization level is the fastest in the sense that it takes about 240 ms for a person to decide if a face is a human face and is barely disturbed by the inversion effect. We put about 260 ms to find a designated person within a crowd and is still affected by the inversion effect with a correct level of performance. Finally, it is with 380 ms that one recognizes a face as familiar. This is the level most achieved by the inversion of faces. They deduce that categorization requires little or no treatment whereas individual face processing would need partial hollistic treatments and would correspond to the first-order relations of Maurer, Le Grand, Mondloch (2002). The recognition of familiar faces would be greatly disrupted by the inversion effect and would require the highest level of hollistic treatment.

Through their three experiments, Ellis, Shepherd, Davies (1979) compared the recognition of familiar faces and unknowns, either in whole or with the inner or outer facial features. They conclude that internal and external characteristics are determinant in determining identity, but that for familiar faces, internal characteristics will lead to further recognition. The results for unknown faces show that there is no preferential use between these two categories of facial

features. From their points of view, this can be explained by the fact that famous personalities have been examined on numerous occasions (on television, in magazines, etc.) and that observers have paid more attention to their internal characteristics to understand their emotions,... Attention would thus play a major role and would lead over time to a better representation in memory for internal and external facial features. Such a treatment could be generalized when recognizing familiar persons such as family or friends ...

They have somehow initiated the notion of robust representation of Tong and Nakayama (1999): Proposed as an extreme form of familiarity, robust representations involve enormously over-learned faces that have been encountered under many different conditions and contexts. These are faces that have been seen through dynamic changes (points of view, light, expressions) or gradual changes like the effects of age. They would therefore consist of information that is invariant from the point of view. They allow faster recognition, can facilitate a variety of visual and decision-making processes. It is also acknowledged that robust representations of one's own face require much less attentional resources, but visual experience so that they develop. The results indicate that one's own face can be recognized more quickly than that of strangers under any conditions (either side or back, three-quarters, face, with or without hair, as target or as a distractor). They therefore propose that very familiar faces should be more robustly represented than unfamiliar faces and therefore less affected by the inversion effect.

A study goes against the previous assertion (Caharel, Fiori, Bernard, Lalonde, Rebaï, 2006): the difference of reaction time, clearly higher for familiar faces than for unknown faces during a configurational alteration allows us to propose That these two stimuli are treated qualitatively differently and can solicit various representations in memory: only the faces presented at the place would be anchored in memory. In another study (Keyes, Brady, Reilly, Foxe, 2010), the faces of friends are recognized faster than the faces of unknowns placed at the site, but not during inversion.

We are generally good at matching familiar faces unlike unfamiliar faces, but some authors wonder if photographs are reliable indicators regarding facial appearance. Many questions arise about the methods used in this field and a critical look could allow the improvement of our practices, bringing us a little closer to the reality with regards to the recognition of the faces. In

research, many have concentrated on the recognition of the face of unknown persons, which is not very important in everyday life where the recognition of familiar people is more frequent. The generalization of the results of studies involving different tasks can also be considered as a problem to be taken into consideration. Are people similarly recognized on simple photographs compared to in vivo faces? (Jenkins & Burton, 2011). In part, our study will serve to determine whether our choices regarding the stimuli used in the experimental task influence reaction times and the correct rate of recognition.

Secondly, our study will make it possible to distinguish certain factors influencing the recognition / treatment of the faces and to explain the individual differences in the performances that can only be observed. Only a few studies to my knowledge have been carried out for this purpose (Beattie, Walsh, McLaren, Biello, White, 2016). Using the Glasgow face-matching task (GFMT) with unknown faces, and some measures like the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) ; The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the PSI, they showed that participants with sleep disturbances made more errors in the standardized face-to-face test. However, deficits in identifying tasks associated with a restricted amount of sleep are not limited to tasks related to memory recognition of faces (Sheth, Nguyen, Janvelyan, 2009) or emotional recognition (Els Van Der Helm, Gujar, Walker, 2010).

The secondary objectives of this study will be to better understand the familiarity of the faces or the inversion effect, but also to see the impact that the quality of sleep of the participants will have on the treatment and the recognition of the faces within a non-clinical French population. Taking into account the study by Jenkins and Burton (2011), we hypothesize that the style of images used will influence the recognition and treatment of faces according to the degree of familiarity and the inversion effect. Second, on the assumption that a lack of sleep can lead to subtle cognitive changes even in young adults (Benitez & Gunstad, 2012) and that poor sleep quality is associated with a lack of sustained attention (Gobin, Banks, Fins, Tartar, 2015), we hypothesize that the sleep quality of the participants will influence the recognition and treatment of faces according to the degree of familiarity and type of images used following the Bruce and Young model (1986).

- Participants will recognize the photos of the unknowns better and faster through the standardized photos, whether they are placed in the right orientation or upside-down.

- Participants will recognize, whether with natural or standardized images, their face and those of their friend more quickly and with a better rate of correct answers than for unknowns in normal and reverse condition.

- Participants will respond faster and with an average rate of good answers better when they have a good quality of sleep than when they have a poor quality of sleep.

- Participants will respond less quickly and with an average rate of lower correct answers when they have poor sleep quality, than they will see natural images upside down.

- Participants with poor sleep quality will respond less quickly but will have an average rate of good responses comparable with those with good sleep quality when facing their own faces compared to the faces of friends and strangers.

II. METHOD:

The forced pairing tasks, each consisting of 168 tests, designed on the E-prime software by Catherine Bortolon, were performed by participants using a 13.3-inch computer and split into two types: Natural tasks and standardized tasks. Two different tasks were provided for both task types. These experimental tasks consisted of images taken by the participant (4 images),

by his friend (4 images), by the experimenter (4 images for the participant and 4 images for the experimental partner articulating the sounds a, e and i) and images of unknowns (natural, standardized images). The images of the standardized unknowns were taken in boxes, at the University of Paul Valéry beforehand by the majority of the group. The test images of the training phase were mainly celebrities. All the images used were resized (260X350), appeared with an interval of 1000 milliseconds and were set black and white. Modified with the photoshop software, they represent the following stimulus styles: natural images (for the participant, for his experience partner, for the two unknowns), natural inverted images (for the participant, for his experienced partner, the standardized images (for the participant, for his partner of experience, for both unknowns) and the standardized inverted images (for the participant, for his partner of experience, for the two unknowns).

The sleep quality index of Pittsburgh (PSQI) (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, Kupfer, 1989) is represented by an overall score (from 0 to 21) grouping 7 components receiving a score ranging from 0 to 3: the subjective quality of sleep; the latency of sleep; the duration of sleep; the usual efficacy of sleep; sleep disorders; the use of a sleep medication; bad shape during the day. It includes 19 self-assessment questions and 5 questions asked to the spouse or roommate if he has one. These 5 questions are not covered in this study. A score of 0 to one component indicates that there are no difficulties, while a score of up to 3 indicates severe difficulties. Compared to the overall score, a score of 0 indicates that there are no difficulties while a score

The manual laterality test (Oldfield, 1971) clarifies the participants' preferences about the use of their hands in certain activities. The proposed activities are 12 in number, each with the right-hand column and the left-hand column: writing, drawing, throwing a ball, holding scissors, using a toothbrush, using a knife, a spoon, A broom, rubbing a match, opening a pot (hand holding the lid), which foot is used when you are typing in a balloon, which eye you use when you need to use only one. Subjects must therefore indicate which hand they prefer to do certain activities: if they put a "+" in each column, it indicates that the activity is shared by both hands, if they put a "+" in one of the columns this indicates that this hand is used preferentially for this activity and if it puts two "+" in a column it indicates that the manual preference is exclusive for this activity. A manual lateral coefficient is then calculated: ((total D - total G) / (total D + total G)) X 100. A cut-off is provided: if the participant has a coefficient of -100 it will be categorized as left-handed Absolute, -50 will indicate that it is a preferential left-hander, 0 an

ambidextrous, +50 a preferential right-hander, +100 an absolute right-hander. 3. Procedure:

Initially, participants recruited according to certain criteria (right-handers, French nationality, aged 18 to 31) and motivated, had to come with a friend (right-handers, French nationality, between 18 and 31 years of age) had to provide a number of photographs before the day of the award. The standardized images for the participants were taken at Paul Valéry's library, in a box just before the start of the pass. For some participants, the natural photos were taken just before the start of the assignment as well and were therefore modified by the experimenter as the participants began to fill out the questionnaires. The counterbalancing of tasks and questionnaires was therefore not always respected: the participants had already completed the questionnaires before the experimenter had time to complete the modification of the photographs. All participants, who were already aware of the terms of the study, consulted the informative document and signed free and informed consent. For the participants who had sent me their photos the day before and had their complete file, a first counterbalancing took place: one participant performed both experimental tasks with both hands while his friend filled out the questionnaires in the Same box and in the presence of the experimenter so that he can answer the questions. The opposite was observed approximately 35 minutes afterwards. The participant had to press one of the two keys ("c" or "n") according to the pictures he saw on the screen. Depending on the name of the task (1 or 2), the keys were reversed to allow counterbalancing. For example, the "c" key could mean "similar face" while the "n" meant "different face". The images, which appeared for 1000 milliseconds, represented photographs of people (the participant, the friend or strangers) and were separated by a fixing cross. The participant was instructed to answer as correctly and as quickly as possible by pressing one of the two keys if he found that the face of a person presented (him, his friend or strangers) image corresponded to the face of the person seen on the first image.

III. RESULTS:

Means of reaction times were calculated by considering only the true responses and values between 100 and 2000 ms. Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20) with a significance threshold p <0.05. The extreme data were removed following the use of the Mahalanobis distance: any data greater than 3 were suppressed

for the correct response rates. The normality of the data was checked before practicing the repeated measure Anova with the Kolmogorov Smirnov test. The Bonferroni fit was used. If the normality of the data or the homogeneity of the variables were not appropriate, the Wilcoxon test was used. To analyze participants' sleep quality and correct response rates, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. As for the parasite variables, age correlates significantly and negatively with the correct average response rate for natural images and for unknowns, and the correct response rate for standardized images of inverted friends not matched (p <0.05).

For the genus, a significant difference in mean between men and women is observed over the average reaction times for the natural images of unknowns presented at the matching location. t (20,4.54) = 2.330 ; p = 0.030 with a higher average for men.

For the ambient images : In normal and matching conditions, a significant difference in the mean reaction time according to the degree of familiarity is observed F (2.42) = 11.298; P = 0.000; R = 0.663. More precisely, the participants recognize their face more quickly than those of the unknown (p = 0.000) and the faces of friends more quickly than those of the unknown (p = 0.000).

In normal and uncorrelated conditions, no significant differences were observed despite familiarity F (2.42) = 0.938; P = 0.399.

For the standardized images : In normal and matching conditions, significant differences are observed according to the degree of familiarity F (2.42) = 7.082; P = 0.002; R = 0.252. More precisely, one recognizes his own face significantly more quickly than those of the unknown (p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed between his own face and that of the friend and the face of the friend from that of the unknown (p> 0.05)

Under normal and uncorrelated conditions, no significant difference was observed between average reaction times according to the different faces perceived F (2,42) = 2,400; P = 0.103.

For the ambient images : In the inverted and matching condition, there is a familiarity effect F (1.438, 30.204) = 10.849; P = 0.001; R = 0.341: participants recognize their faces significantly faster than unknowns (p = 0.002) and faster the faces of friends than the faces of unknowns (p = 0.015). No difference between his own face and the faces of friends (p> 0.05).

In the inverted and non-matching condition, no significant difference in average reaction time was observed between his own face, the faces of the friend and the unknowns F (1,423,29,889) = 0.527; P = 0.536.

Between the normal VS inverted match condition, participants show no significant difference in mean reaction time either for his own face, the faces of the friend or strangers (p> 0.05).

Between the normal condition VS inverted non-matching, the participants show no significant difference in average reaction time either for his own face, the faces of the friend or unknown F (5,105) = 0.905; p = 0.481.

For the standardized images : In a matching and inverted condition, there is a familiarity effect F (2.42) = 11.926; P = 0.000; R = 0.362. Participants answer faster for their own faces than for unknowns (p = 0.001), for friends' faces than for unknowns (p = 0.001), but no significant difference is observed for their own face and that of friends (p> 0.05).

In non-matching and inverted condition, no significant difference is observed F (1.579, 33.157) = 2.170; P = 0.139.

In normal VS reversed match condition, no significant difference is observed between his own face, the faces of the friend or strangers (p> 0.05)

In normal condition VS inverted not matched, a significant difference is observed for the faces of unknown F (1,21) = 11,534; P = 0.003; R = 0.355: they recognize the faces of strangers more quickly in the place than in the back.

In match and normal conditions, participants do not respond significantly faster depending on the use of natural or standardized images, either in relation to their own face F (1,21) = 0,011; P = 0.919 or that of friend F (1.21) = 0.044; P = 0.836. On the other hand, the respondents respond significantly faster for standardized images when the faces of unknowns are in the right orientation matched F (1,21) = 23,26; P = 0.000; R = 0.526.

In non-match and normal conditions, the participants showed no significant difference between the natural and standardized images either for his own face F (1,21) = 0.301; P = 0.589; the faces of the friend F (1,21) = 0.106; P = 0.749 or unknown faces F (1,21) = 2,483; P = 0.130.

In the match and inverted condition, the participants showed no significant difference between the natural and standardized images either for his own face F (1,21) = 0,046; P = 0.832; The faces of their friend F (1,21) = 0.126; P = 0.726. On the other hand, participants respond significantly faster for standardized images when it comes to the faces of unknowns F (1,21) = 4,372; P = 0.049; R = 0.172.

In a non-matching and inverted condition, participants showed no significant difference between natural and standardized images either for their own face F (1,21) = 0.627; P = 0.437, the faces of the friends F (1,21) = 0; P = 0.988 or unknown faces F (1.21) = 0.510; P = 0.483.

For the ambient images : A significant interaction is observed in inverse condition and not matched according to the degree of familiarity F (1.5,30) = 3,820; P = 0.044; R = 0.160: according to the diagram, a better average reaction time is observed for his own face when participants have poor sleep quality than when they have good sleep. A better average reaction time is also observed for friends' faces when participants have poor sleep quality than when they have good sleep. No interaction for the faces of strangers and the quality of sleep of the participants.

For the standardized images : No significant interaction was observed for all conditions between average reaction times and participants' sleep quality (p> 0.05).

Match: On average, no significant difference is observed between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in normal condition for its own face (p = 0.512); The faces of friends (p = 0.521). On the other hand, a significant difference is observed for the faces of unknowns who are better recognized through standardized images (p = 0.000).

On average, a significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in reversed condition is found for its own face, which is better recognized through standardized images (p = 0.046) as well as for the faces of unknowns (p = 0.000). No significant difference for friends' faces (p = 0.142).

Non-match: On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in normal condition for his own face (p = 0.713) and the face of friends (p = 1.000). On the other hand, a significant difference is observed for the faces of unknowns who are better recognized through standardized (p= 0.019).

On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized and natural images in the reversed condition for the faces of the friends (p = 0.272) and the faces of the unknowns (p = 0.072). On the other hand, a significant difference is observed for his own face, which would be better recognized through natural images (p = 0.033).

Match: On average, no significant difference is observed between the correct response rates of natural images in normal condition for his own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the unknown (p = 0.000) and better their own face than the unknown ones (p = 0.000).

On average, there is no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized images in reversed condition when participants see their own faces and those of unknowns (p

On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of natural images in the inverted condition for her own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better recognize their own reversed face than the inverted unknowns (p = 0.000) and better recognize the faces of inverted friends than the inverted unknowns (p = 0.000).

Non-match: On average, there is no significant difference between the correct response rates of natural images in inverted condition for his own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better recognize their own reversed face than the inverted unknowns (p = 0.003) and recognize the faces of inverted friends better than the faces of reversed unknowns (p = 0.001).

On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of natural images in normal condition for her own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the unknown (p = 0.002) and better their own face than the unknown ones (p = 0.012).

Match: On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized images in normal condition for his own face and that of friends (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants better recognized the faces of the friends than the faces of the unknown (p = 0.002) and better their own face than the unknown ones (p = 0.001).

On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized images in inverted conditions for his own face and that of friends, and between the faces of friends and unknowns (p> 0.05). On the other hand, the participants recognized their own face better than the unknown (p = 0.000).

Non-match: On average, there was no significant difference between the correct response rates of standardized images in normal condition when participants saw their own faces and those of friends (p = 0.679), saw the faces of friends compared to those of unknowns (p = 0.275) and see their own faces compared to unknowns (p = 0.376).

= 0.822), see the faces of friends compared to those of unknowns (p = 0.541) and see their own faces compared to friends (p = 0.376).

Orientation effect .
·

Match : On average, there was no significant difference in the correct levels of the participants, with the natural images, when they perceived their face to the right and wrong (p = 0.803), the face of the friend to the right and wrong (p = 0.484) but better recognize the faces of the unknowns in the place than in the back (p = 0.013).

Non-match : On average, there was no significant difference in the correct levels of the participants, with the natural images, when they perceived their face in the place and the wrong way (p = 0.527), the face of the friend in the right orientation and upside-down (p = 0.739), from the unknowns to the place and backwards (p = 0.919).

Match : On average, there was no significant difference in the correct levels of the participants, with the standardized images, when they perceived their face in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p = 0.102), the face of the friend in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p = 0.124), from the unknowns to the place and backwards (p = 0.647).

Non-match : On average, there was no significant difference in the correct levels of the participants, with the standardized images, when they perceived their face in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p = 0.078), the face of the friend in the wrong place and in the right orientation (p = 0.124), unknowns at the place and backwards (p = 0.262).

Quality of sleep effect .
·

For natural and standardized images, in match and non-match situations, no significant difference was observed between all the correct average response rates and the sleep quality status of the participants despite the inversion effect, the degree of Familiarity (p> 0.05).

IV. DISCUSSION:

The general hypothesis that we posed was that the style of images used, natural or standardized, could influence the recognition and treatment of faces. According to some studies, it seemed sensible that the participants recognize, whether with natural or standardized images, their faces and those of their friend more quickly and with an average rate of good answers better than when confronted with faces of unknowns in normal condition and inverted. But also that the participants recognize better and faster the images of the unknowns through the standardized photos that they are placed in the place or the reverse.

The results show that the faces of the standardized unknowns are better and more quickly recognized than the faces of natural unknowns placed at the place and in reverse in match condition. Our hypothesis as to the facts that one recognizes his face better and that of the friend compared to the faces of the unknowns that it is through normalized images or natural, in normal condition and inverted, is partly confirmed. That is, the advantage of one's own face and that of friends from unfamiliar faces is found only in the normal condition and matched for reaction times and accuracy for natural images and for accuracy of normalized unchored and normalized images. The advantage of his own face and that of the friend is also found in reverse condition match for natural images and standardized through reaction times as well as only when accuracy of natural images. The reversal of the uncorrected photos shows a certain advantage for his own face and that of the friends compared to the faces of the unknowns only for the accuracy of the ambient images.

Through these results, we can not affirm, on the contrary, the recognition of his own face as being special, contrary to a degree of familiarity in the recognition of faces between familiar and less familiar faces since the results show that one recognizes better and more quickly his own face and that of the friends compared to the faces of the unknown in most of the conditions. This preparation makes the faces of unknowns can begin to be learned and stored in the face recognition units (FRU) (Etchells, Brooks, Johnston, 2017). Explanations can be taken into account without mentioning the degree of familiarity: it is possible that unknown faces do not require the same cognitive functions or at any other continuum than the other two types of faces. For example, for face-matching tasks involving unknowns, a study shows that attention may

possibly affect the identification performance, which is better for experts who produce less errors than novices (White, Phillips, Hahn, Hill, O'Toole, 2015).

The inversion effect is not significant except for the reaction time for the unchallenged standardized images where the participants recognize significantly more quickly the face of the unknowns in the place than in the reverse and level of accuracy for the natural images match where one recognizes significantly more the faces of strangers in the place than in the reverse. This type of result is not isolated in the scientific literature across different population types (Laval-lée et al., 2016; Feusner et al., 2010). The criticism we could make is that we have not sought to target a specific type of specific process as in some study aimed at understanding the inversion effect, but this was not the purpose of 'study.

Some of the weaknesses of this study deserve to be addressed and considered in the future. The small sample first does not allow the generalization of the data and some groups of participants were made up of a man and a woman, which leads to a gender bias that could have been avoided but which remains commonplace in the everyday life. Moreover, as Jenkins and Burton (2011) point out, a photograph is not necessarily a reliable indicator of facial appearance. In this sense, images selected by unknown persons would be indicators more representative of the facial appearance of a particular person than if it were the same person who would select the images concerning. The representations of the self therefore interfere with our ability to judge which images faithfully represent our appearance.

Offering new perspectives on the representations that those proposed by the technique averaging, this study, through the natural images that it is for the faces of the participants; Friends or unknowns respects the principle of the interpersonal variability of the face and the environment (Burton et al., 2011) even if it is restricted by the fact that the images were dated less than one-year old. The orientation of the images has been mixed, which undoubtedly allows the cancellation of any learning (Hussain, Sekuler, Bennett, 2009). Other results could have been obtained if the standardized images had been produced with static expressions as in many laboratory studies. Here, participants and unknowns articulate letters for standardized images, which respects the recognition of faces in everyday life, but perhaps it is not equivalent to the facial expressions that one could find in our natural images. This may have influenced the results by knowing that the facial expressions are insensitive to the inversion effect (Psalta & Andrews, 2014).

Second, we thought that sleep quality could influence face recognition and treatment, but more precisely that poor sleep quality would have deleterious effects on participants' performance in terms of average reaction time but also at the level of sleep of the correct average response rates. In reality, the inverted natural images of his own face and that of the friend, the untested ones obtained a significantly faster mean reaction time when the participants had a poor quality of sleep than those with a good one.

A lack of precision in the questionnaires, which is intended to be global, can also be mentioned and lead to discussion of the results (Ramsawh, Stein, Belik, Jacobi, Sareen, 2009), with particular attention given to the subjective notion of scores on sleep quality significantly influenced by Depression and anxiety (Matousek, Cervena, Zavesicka, Brunovsky, 2004). Taking into account that poor sleep quality disrupts memory performance (Nakagawa et al., 2016), representations of one's own face or Even that of friends should be affected by the poor quality of sleep and this negatively while our results do not go in this direction. A closer and more precise study could be beneficial: see if the degree of familiarity of the faces is really due to multiple and varied memory representations compared to the faces of unknowns.

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Apps, M. A. J., Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Turley, G., & Tsakiris, M. (2012). The different faces of one's self: An fMRI study into the recognition of current and past self-facial appearances. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1720-1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.053

Baird, L. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). The bilateral advantage for famous faces: interhemispheric communication or competition? Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1581-1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.001

Beattie, L., Walsh, D., McLaren, J., Biello, S. M., & White, D. (2016). Perceptual impairment in face identification with poor sleep. Royal Society Open Science, 3(10), 160321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160321

Benitez, A., & Gunstad, J. (2012). Poor sleep quality diminishes cognitive functioning

Besson, G., Barragan-Jason, G., Thorpe, S. J., Fabre-Thorpe, M., Puma, S., Ceccaldi, M., & Barbeau, E. J. (2017). From face processing to face recognition: Comparing three different processing levels. Cognition, 158, 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.004 Bortolon, C., Lorieux, S., & Raffard, S. (2017). Self or Familiar-Face Recognition Advantage? New Insight Using Ambient Images. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1327982

Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 77 ( Pt 3), 305-327.

Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2011). Mental representations of familiar faces: Mental representations of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 943-958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02039.x

Butler, D. L., Mattingley, J. B., Cunnington, R., & Suddendorf, T. (2012). Mirror, mirror on the wall, how does my brain recognize my image at all? PloS One, 7(2), e31452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031452

Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28(2), 193-213.

Caharel, S., Fiori, N., Bernard, C., Lalonde, R., & Rebaï, M. (2006). The effects of inversion and eye displacements of familiar and unknown faces on early and late-stage ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62(1), 141-151.

Carbon, C.-C., & Leder, H. (2005). When Feature Information Comes First! Early Processing of Inverted Faces. Perception, 34(9), 1117-1134. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5192

Decety, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: a social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 527-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.004

Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.115.2.107

Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., & Davies, G. M. (1979). Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception, 8(4), 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1068/p080431

Etchells, D. B., Brooks, J. L., & Johnston, R. A. (2017). Evidence for view-invariant face recognition units in unfamiliar face learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 70(5), 874-889. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1248453

Feusner, J. D., Moller, H., Altstein, L., Sugar, C., Bookheimer, S., Yoon, J., & Hembacher, E. (2010). Inverted face processing in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(15), 1088-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.03.015

Gillihan, S. J., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Is Self Special? A Critical Review of Evidence From Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.76

Gobin, C. M., Banks, J. B., Fins, A. I., & Tartar, J. L. (2015). Poor sleep quality is associated with a negative cognitive bias and decreased sustained attention. Journal of Sleep Research, 24(5), 535-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12302

Hussain, Z., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2009). Perceptual learning modifies inversion

Kaplan, J. T., Aziz-Zadeh, L., Uddin, L. Q., & Iacoboni, M. (2008). The self across the senses: an fMRI study of self-face and self-voice recognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(3), 218-223. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn014

Keenan, J. P., Ganis, G., Freund, S., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2000). Self-face identification is increased with left hand responses. Laterality, 5(3), 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/713754382

Keenan, J. P., McCutcheon, B., Freund, S., Gallup, G. G., Sanders, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (1999). Left hand advantage in a self-face recognition task. Neuropsychologia, 37(12), 1421-1425.

Keyes, H. (2012). Categorical perception effects for facial identity in robustly represented familiar and self-faces: The role of configural and featural information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 760-772. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.636822 Keyes, H., & Brady, N. (2010). Self-face recognition is characterized by «bilateral gain» and by faster, more accurate performance which persists when faces are inverted. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 840-847. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003611264

Keyes, H., Brady, N., Reilly, R. B., & Foxe, J. J. (2010). My face or yours? Event-related potential correlates of self-face processing. Brain and Cognition, 72(2), 244-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.09.006

Kircher, T. T., Senior, C., Phillips, M. L., Benson, P. J., Bullmore, E. T., Brammer, M., ... David, A. S. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of self processing: effects of faces and words. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1-2), 133-144.

Lavallée, M. M., Gandini, D., Rouleau, I., Vallet, G. T., Joannette, M., Kergoat, M.-J., ...

Joubert, S. (2016). A Qualitative Impairment in Face Perception in Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence from a Reduced Face Inversion Effect. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 51(4), 1225-1236. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-151027

Matousek, M., Cervena, K., Zavesicka, L., & Brunovsky, M. (2004). Subjective and objective evaluation of alertness and sleep quality in depressed patients. BMC Psychiatry, 4, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-4-14

Maurer, D., Grand, R. L., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4

Nakagawa, S., Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Nouchi, R., Sekiguchi, A., Kotozaki, Y., ... Kawashima, R. (2016). Sex-Related Differences in the Effects of Sleep Habits on Verbal and Visuospatial Working Memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01128

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.

Psalta, L., & Andrews, T. J. (2014). Inversion improves the recognition of facial expression in thatcherized images. Perception, 43(8), 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7755

Ramsawh, H. J., Stein, M. B., Belik, S.-L., Jacobi, F., & Sareen, J. (2009). Relationship of anxiety disorders, sleep quality, and functional impairment in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(10), 926-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.009 Rhodes, G., Brake, S., & Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What's lost in inverted faces? Cognition, 47(1), 25-57.

Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 75 ( Pt 2), 221-242. Sheth, B. R., Nguyen, N., & Janvelyan, D. (2009). Does Sleep Really Influence Face

Recognition Memory? PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005496 Silen, W., Machen, T. E., & Forte, J. G. (1975). Acid-base balance in amphibian gastric mucosa. The American Journal of Physiology, 229(3), 721-730.

Thornton, J. A., & Harrison, M. J. (1975). Letter: Duration of action of AH8165. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 47(9), 1033.

Tong, F., & Nakayama, K. (1999). Robust representations for faces: evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1016-1035.

Uddin, L. Q. (2011). Brain connectivity and the self: The case of cerebral disconnection. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(1), 94-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.009 Uddin, L. Q., Kaplan, J. T., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Zaidel, E., & Iacoboni, M. (2005). Self-face recognition activates a frontoparietal «mirror» network in the right hemisphere: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 25(3), 926-935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.018

Uddin, L. Q., Rayman, J., & Zaidel, E. (2005). Split-brain reveals separate but equal self-recognition in the two cerebral hemispheres. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(3), 633-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.01.008

van der Helm, E., Gujar, N., & Walker, M. P. (2010). Sleep deprivation impairs the accurate recognition of human emotions. Sleep, 33(3), 335-342.

White, D., Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Hill, M., & O'Toole, A. J. (2015). Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1814), 20151292. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1292

Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1),

Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361-370.

VI. APPENDICES:

Standardized images

Matched

Non Matched

UNK: Recognized quickly in the place than in the reverse

Ambient images

Matched

Non Matched

UNK: Better recognized in place than in reverse