Filtered beauty in Oslo and Tokyo: A spatial frequency analysis of facial attractiveness

Autoři: Morten Øvervoll aff001;  Ilaria Schettino aff002;  Hikaru Suzuki aff003;  Matia Okubo aff003;  Bruno Laeng aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology, University of Tromsø (The Arctic University of Norway), Tromsø, Norway aff001;  Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway aff002;  Department of Psychology, Senshu University, Tokyo, Japan aff003;  RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Rhythm, Time and Motion, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227513


Images of European female and male faces were digitally processed to generate spatial frequency (SF) filtered images containing only a narrow band of visual information within the Fourier spectrum. The original unfiltered images and four SF filtered images (low, medium-low, medium-high and high) were then paired in trials that kept constant SF band and face gender and participants made a forced-choice decision about the more attractive among the two faces. In this way, we aimed at identifying those specific SF bands where forced-choice preferences corresponded best to forced-choice judgements made when viewing the natural, broadband, facial images. We found that aesthetic preferences dissociated across SFs and face gender, but similarly for participants from Asia (Japan) and Europe (Norway). Specifically, preferences when viewing SF filtered images were best related to the preference with the broadband face images when viewing the highest filtering band for the female faces (about 48–77 cycles per face). In contrast, for the male faces, the medium-low SF band (about 11–19 cpf) related best to choices made with the natural facial images. Eye tracking provided converging evidence for the above, gender-related, SF dissociations. We suggest greater aesthetic relevance of the mobile and communicative parts for the female face and, conversely, of the rigid, structural, parts for the male face for facial aesthetics.

Klíčová slova:

Dwell time – Eyes – Face – Face recognition – Lips – Nose – Psychological attitudes – Vision


1. Symons D. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. Sexual nature, sexual culture. 1995; 80–118.

2. Symons D. The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1979.

3. Grammer K, Fink B, Møller AP, Thornhill R. Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews. 2003; 78: 385–407. doi: 10.1017/s1464793102006085 14558590

4. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994; 368(6468): 239–242. doi: 10.1038/368239a0 8145822

5. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu CH. “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 68: 261–279.

6. Fink B, Penton-Voak I. Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2002; 11(5): 154–158.

7. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27(1): 79.

8. Laeng B, Falkenberg L. Women’s pupillary responses to sexually significant others during the hormonal cycle. Hormones and Behavior. 2007; 52: 520–530. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.07.013 17870074

9. Anderson US, Perea EF, Becker DV, Ackerman JM, Shapiro JR, Neuberg SL et al. I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2010; 46: 804–808. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.015 21874067

10. Okubo M, Ishikawa K, Kobayashi A, Laeng B, Tommasi L. Cool guys and warm husbands: The effect of smiling on male facial attractiveness for short- and long-term relationships. Evolutionary Psychology. 2015; 13(3).

11. Hönekopp J. Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2006; 32: 199–209. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199 16634665

12. Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Schmidt N. et al. Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2002; 269: 873–880. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.1971 12028768

13. Laeng B, Mathisen R, Johnsen JA. Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2012; 61: 371–382.

14. Bovet J, Barthes J, Durand V, Raymond M, Alvergne A. Men’s preference for women’s facial features: Testing homogamy and the paternity uncertainty hypothesis. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(11), e49791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049791 23185437

15. Sulutvedt U, Laeng B. The self prefers itself? Self-referential versus parental standards in face attractiveness. PeerJ. 2014; 2: e595 doi: 10.7717/peerj.595 25276508

16. Bressan P, Damian V. Fathers’ eye color sways daughters’ choice of both long and short-term partners. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8: 5574. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23784-7 29615697

17. Laeng B, Vermeer O, Sulutvedt U. Is beauty in the face of the beholder? PLoS ONE 2013; 8(7), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068395.g001

18. Said CP, Todorov A. A statistical model of facial attractiveness. Psychological Science. 2012; 22: 1183. doi: 10.1177/0956797611419169 21852448

19. Thornhill R, Møller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 1997; 72(04): 497–548.

20. Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady JM, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1998; 5(4): 659–669.

21. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006; 57: 199–226. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208 16318594

22. Shapley R, Lennie P. Spatial frequency analysis in the visual system. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 1984; 8: 547–583.

23. Field D. Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. Journal of Optical Society of America. 1987; A 4: 2379–2394.

24. Tootell RBH, Silverman MS, Hamilton SL, Switkes E, De Valois RL. Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex. V. Spatial frequency. The Journal of Neuroscience. 1988; 8(5): 1610–1624. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.08-05-01610.1988 3367213

25. Rotshtein P, Vuilleumier P, Winston J, Driver J, Dolan R. Distinct and convergent visual processing of high and low spatial frequency information in faces. Cerebral Cortex. 2007; 17(11), 2713–2724. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl180 17283203

26. Rhodes G, Peters M, Lee K, Morrone MC, Burr D. Higher-level mechanisms detect facial symmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2005; 272(1570): 1379–1384. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3093 16006321

27. Harmon LD, Julesz B. Masking in visual recognition: Effects of dimensional filtered noise. Science. 1973; 180, 1194–1197. doi: 10.1126/science.180.4091.1194 4707066

28. Fiorentini A, Maffei L, Sandini G. The role of high spatial frequencies in face perception. Perception. 1983; 12, 195–201. doi: 10.1068/p120195 6657426

29. Costen N, Parker D, Craw I. Effects of high-pass and low-pass spatial filtering on face identification. Percept Psychophys. 1996; 58, 602–612. doi: 10.3758/bf03213093 8934690

30. Parker DS, Costen NP. One extreme or the other or perhaps the golden mean? Issues of spatial resolution in face processing. Current Psychology. 1999; 18(1), 118–127.

31. Holmes A, Winston JS, Eimer M. The role of spatial frequency information for ERP components sensitive to faces and emotional facial expression. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005; 25(2): 508–520. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.003 16168629

32. Collin CA, Therrien M, Martin C, Rainville S. Spatial frequency thresholds for face recognition when comparison faces are filtered and unfiltered. Perception & Psychophysics. 2006; 68: 879–889.

33. Ruiz-Soler M, Beltran FS. Face perception: An integrative review of the role of spatial frequencies. Psychological Research. 2006; 70: 273–292. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0215-z 16075260

34. Keil MS, Lapedriza A, Masip D, Vitria J. Preferred spatial frequencies for human face processing are associated with optimal class discrimination in the machine. PLoS One. 2008; 3(7), e2590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002590 18596932

35. Laeng B, Profeti I, Sæther L, Adolfsdottir S, Lundervold A, Vangberg T, Øvervoll M, Johnsen SH, Waterloo K. Invisible expressions evoke core impressions. Emotion. 2010; 4, 573–586.

36. Ramon M, Vizioli L, Liu-Shuang J, Rossion B. Neural microgenesis of personally familiar face recognition. PNAS. 2015: E4835–E4844. 26283361

37. Prete G, Laeng B, Tommasi L. Modulating adaptation to emotional faces by spatial frequency filtering. Psychological Research. 2016; 82(2), 310–323. doi: 10.1007/s00426-016-0830-x 27889815

38. Menzel C, Hayn-Leichsenring GU, Langner O, Wiese H, Redies C. Fourier Power Spectrum characteristics of face photographs: Attractiveness perception depends on low-level image properties. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(4): e0122801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122801 25835539

39. Bachmann T. When beauty breaks down: Investigation of the effect of spatial quantisation on aesthetic evaluation of facial images. Perception. 2015; 36, 840–849.

40. Guo K, Liu CH, Roebuck H. I know you are beautiful even without looking at you: Discrimination of facial beauty in peripheral vision. Perception. 2011; 40, 191–195. doi: 10.1068/p6849 21650092

41. Kuraguchi K, Ashida H. Beauty and cuteness in peripheral vision. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015; 6, 566. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00566 25999883

42. Leppanen JM, Nelson CA. Tuning the developing brain to social signals of emotions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2009; 10, 37–47. doi: 10.1038/nrn2554 19050711

43. Mäkelä P, Näsänen R, Rovamo J, Melmoth D. Identification of facial images in peripheral vision. Vision Research. 2001; 41, 599–610. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00259-5 11226505

44. Melmoth DR, Kukkonen HT, Mäkelä PK, Rovamo JM. The effect of contrast and size scaling on face perception in foveal and extrafoveal vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2000; 41, 2811–2819.

45. Slater A, Bremner G, Johnson SP, Sherwood P, Hayes R, Brown E. Newborn infants’ preference for attractive faces. Infancy. 2000a; 1(2): 265–274.

46. Slater A, Quinn PC, Hayes R, Brown E. The role of orientation in newborn infants’ preference for attractive faces. Developmental Science. 2000b; 3(2), 181–185.

47. von Hofsten O, von Hofsten C, Sulutvedt U, Laeng B, Brennen T, Magnussen S. Simulating newborn face perception. Journal of Vision. 2014; 14(13):16. doi: 10.1167/14.13.16 25406161

48. Johnson MH. Subcortical face processing. Nature Reviews / Neuroscience. 2005; 6, 766–774. doi: 10.1038/nrn1766 16276354

49. Ojanpää H, Näsänen R. Utilisation of spatial frequency information in face search. Vision Research. 2003; 43, 2505–2515. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00459-0 13129538

50. Keil MS. Does face image statistics predict a preferred spatial frequency for human face processing? Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2008; 275, 2095–2100. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0486 18544506

51. Hayes A, Morrone M, Burr D. Recognition of positive and negative bandpass filtered images. Perception. 1986; 15: 595–602. doi: 10.1068/p150595 3588219

52. Goffaux V, Rossion B. Faces are ‘spatial’—holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2006; 32: 1023–1039. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1023 16846295

53. Du S, Martinez AM. The resolution of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Vision. 2011; 11, 1–13. doi: 10.1167/11.13.24 22131445

54. Smith FW, Schyns PG. Smile through your fear and sadness: Transmitting and identifying facial expression signals over a range of viewing distances. Psychology Science. 2009; 20: 1202–1208.

55. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin. 1955; 52(4): 281–302. 13245896

56. Corbetta M, Akbudak E, Conturo TE, Snyder AZ, Ollinger JM, Drury HA, Linenweber MR, Petersen SE, Raichle ME, Van Essen DC, Shulman GL. A common network of functional areas for attention and eye movements. Neuron. 1998; 21(4), 761–773. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80593-0 9808463

57. Findlay JM. Eye scanning and visual search. In: Henderson JM, Ferreira F, editors: The interface of language, vision and action: Eye movements and the visual world, Psychology Press; 2004.

58. Sæther L, Van Belle W, Laeng B, Brennen T, Øvervoll M. Anchoring gaze when categorizing faces’ sex: Evidence from eye-tracking data. Vision Research. 2009; 49(23), 2870–2880. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.09.001 19733582

59. Shimojo S, Simion C, Shimojo E, Scheier C. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience. 2003; 6, 1317–1322 doi: 10.1038/nn1150 14608360

60. Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value. Nature Neuroscience. 2010; 13, 1292–1298. doi: 10.1038/nn.2635 20835253

61. Laeng B, Suegami T, Aminihajibashi S. Wine labels: An eye-tracking and pupillometry study. International Journal of Wine Business Research. 2016; 28(4), 327–348. doi: 10.1108/IJWBR-03-2016-0009

62. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing; 2002

63. Rhodes G, Lee K, Palermo R, Weiss M, Yoshikawa S, Clissa P., … & Jeffery L. Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception. 2005; 34(3), 319–340. doi: 10.1068/p5191 15895630

64. Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RC, Levin LS, Forrest CR. Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2002; 26: 64. doi: 10.1007/s00266-001-0033-7 11891603

65. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, Bagic I, Baltadjiev G, Cunha E, Cvicelova M, Davies S, Erasmus I, Gillett-Netting R, Hajnis K, Kemkes-Grottenthaler A, Khomyakova I, Kumi A, Kgamphe JS, Kayo-Daigo N. Le T., Malinowski A., Negasheva M., Manolis S., Ogeturk M., Parvizrad R., Rosing F., Sahu P., Sforza C., Sivkov S., Sultanova N., Tomazo-Ravnik T., Toth G., Uzun A., & Yahia E. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2005; 16, 615. doi: 10.1097/01.scs.0000171847.58031.9e 16077306

66. Abdelkade M, Leong S, White PS. Aesthetic proportions of the nasal aperture in 3 different racial groups of men. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006; 7: 111–113.

67. Sim RST, Smith JD, Chan ASY. Comparisons of the aesthetic facial proportions of Southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006; 2: 113–120

68. Bigoni L, Velemínská J, Brůžek J. Three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of cranio-facial sexual dimorphism in a Central European sample of known sex. HOMO—Journal of Comparative Human Biology. 2010; 61: 16–32

69. Laeng B, Kiambarua KG, Hagen T, Bochynska A, Lubell J, Suzuki H, Okubo M. The "face race lightness illusion": An effect of the eyes and pupils? PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(8), e0201603. 30071065

70. Blais C, Jack RE, Scheepers C, Fiset D, Caldara R. Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3, e3022. 18714387

71. Tardif J, Fiset D, Zhang Y, Estéphan A, Cai Q, Luo C, Sun D, Gosselin F, Blais C. Culture shapes spatial frequency tuning for face identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2017; 43(2): 294–306. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000288 27819456

72. Chelnokova OV, Laeng B, Løseth GE, Eikemo MH, Willoch F, Leknes S. The μ-opioid system promotes visual attention to faces and eyes. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 2014; 11(12):1902–1909.

73. Kranz F, Ishai A. Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology. 2006; 16:63–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.070 16401423

74. King DE. Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2009; 10:1755–1758.

75. Lin J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 1991; 37(1):145–151. doi: 10.1109/18.61115

76. Endres DM, Schindelin JE. A new metric for probability distributions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 2003; 49(7):1858–1860. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2003.813506

77. Goffaux V, Dakin SC. Horizontal information drives the behavioral signatures of face processing. Frontiers in Psychology. 2010. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00143 21833212

78. Duncan J, Gosselin F, Cobarro C, Dugas G, Blais C, Fiset D. Orientations for the successful categorization of facial expressions and their link with facial features. Journal of Vision. 2017; 17(14):7, 1–16, doi: 10.1167/17.14.7 29228140

79. Mensen A, Khatami R. Advanced EEG analysis using threshold-free cluster-enhancement and non-parametric statistics. NeuroImage. 2013; 67: 111–118. 23123297

80. Kaspar F, Schuster HG. Easily calculable measure for the complexity of spatiotemporal patterns. Physical Review A. 2011; 36(2):842–858.

81. Vlamings PHJM, Goffaux V, Kemner C. Is the early modulation of brain activity by fearful facial expression primarily mediated by coarse low spatial frequency information? Journal of Vision. 2009; 9(5):12, 1–13. doi: 10.1167/9.5.12 19757890

82. Kumar D, Srinivasan N. Emotion perception is mediated by spatial frequency content. Emotion. 2011; 11(5):1144–1151. doi: 10.1037/a0025453 21942699

83. O’Toole AJ, Vetter T, Troje NF, Bülthoff HH. Sex classification is better with three-dimensional head structure than with image intensity information. Perception. 1997; 26:75–84. doi: 10.1068/p260075 9196691

84. Fink B, Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2001; 115:92–99. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.115.1.92 11334223

85. Burton AM, Bruce V, Dench N. What’s the difference between men and women? Perception. 1993; 22:153–176.

86. Enlow DH. Facial growth (3rd edition), Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1990.

87. Mikalsen ÅKR, Folstad I, Yoccoz NG, Laeng B. The spectacular human nose: An amplifier of individual quality? PeerJ. 2014. doi: 10.7717/peerj.357 24765588

88. Tyler CW, Chen CC. Spatial summation of face information. Journal of Vision. 2006; 6:1117–1125. doi: 10.1167/6.10.11 17132083

89. Chelnokova OV, Laeng B. Three-dimensional information in face recognition: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Vision. 2011; 11(13). doi: 10.1167/11.13.27 22131448

90. McCarthy A, Lee K, Itakura S, Muir D.W. Gaze display when thinking depends on culture and context. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 2008; 39:716–729.

91. Caldara R, Zhou X, Miellet S. Putting culture under the ‘spotlight’ reveals universal information use for face recognition. PLoS ONE. 2010; 5(3): e9708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009708 20305776

92. McKone E, Aimola DA, Fernando D, Aalders R, Leung H, Wickramariyaratne T, Platow MJ. Asia has the global advantage: Race and visual attention. Vision Research. 2010; 50:1540–1549. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.010 20488198

93. Uono S, Hietanen JK. Eye contact perception in the west and east: A cross-cultural study. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(2): e0118094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118094 25714900

94. Morsbach H. Aspects of nonverbal communication in Japan. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1973; 157:262–277. doi: 10.1097/00005053-197310000-00006 4729062

95. Pallett PM, Link S, Lee K. New “golden” ratios for facial beauty. Vision Res. 2010; 50(2):149–154. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.003 19896961

96. Holland E. Marquardt’s phi mask: Pitfalls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2008; 32:200–208. doi: 10.1007/s00266-007-9080-z 18175168

97. Hess EH. The role of pupil size in communication. Scientific American. 1975; Nov,233(5):110–119. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1175-110 1188340

98. Godinho RM, Spikins P, O’Higgins P. Supraorbital morphology and social dynamics in human evolution. Nature: Ecology & Evolution. 2018; 2:956–961.

99. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 1999; 266(1431):1913–1917. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0866 10535106

100. Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 2001; 268:1617–1623. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1703 11487409

101. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial masculinity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2003; 24(4):231–241.

102. Koehler N, Simmons LW, Rhodes G, Peters M. The relationship between sexual dimorphism in human faces and fluctuating asymmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2004; 271(4):233–236.

103. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak IS, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzl SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998; 394, 884–887. doi: 10.1038/29772 9732869

104. Scott IML, Pound N, Stephen ID, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS ONE. 2010; 5(10): e13585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013585 21048972

105. Folstad I, Karter AJ. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist. 1992; 139:603–622.

106. Wade TJ. The relationships between symmetry and attractiveness and mating relevant decisions and behavior: A Review. Symmetry. 2010; 2, 1081–1098; doi: 10.3390/sym2021081

107. Gilani SZ, Rooney K, Shafait F, Walters M, Mian A. Geometric facial gender scoring: Objectivity of perception. PLoS ONE. 2002, June; 9(6): e99483. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099483 24923319

108. Valenzano DR, Mennucci A, Tartarelli G, Cellerino A. Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness. Vision Research. 2006; 46:1282–1291. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.024 16356527

109. Sui J, Liu CH. Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2009; 16, 276–281.

110. Hung SM, Nieh CH, Hsieh PJ. Unconscious processing of facial attractiveness: invisible attractive faces orient visual attention. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6:37117. doi: 10.1038/srep37117 (2016) 27848992

111. Palomares JKS, Young AW. Facial first impressions of partner preference traits: Trustworthiness, status, and attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2018; 9(8):990–1000.

112. Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O’Connor E, Breiter HC. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron. 2001; 32(3):537–551. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00491-3 11709163

113. Leder H, Tinio PPL, Fuchs IM, Bohrn I. When attractiveness demands longer looks: The effects of situation and gender. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2010; 63:1858–1871.

114. Chen W, Liu CH, Nakabayashi K. Beauty hinders attention switch in change detection: the role of facial attractiveness and distinctiveness. PloS One. 2012; 7(2).

115. Redies C, Hänisch J, Blickhan M, Denzler J. Artists portray human faces with the Fourier statistics of complex natural scenes. Network: Computation in Neural Systems. 2007; 18, 235–248.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1