Abstract

Humans are good at recognizing familiar faces, but are more error-prone at recognizing an unfamiliar person across different images. It has been suggested that familiar and unfamiliar faces are processed qualitatively differently. But are unfamiliar faces at least processed differently from monkey faces? Here we tested 366 volunteers on a face matching test – two images presented side-by-side with participants judging whether the images show the same identity or two different identities – comparing performance with familiar and unfamiliar human faces, and monkey faces. The results showed that performance was most accurate for familiar faces, and was above chance for monkey faces. Although accuracy was higher for unfamiliar humans than monkeys on different identity trials, there was no unfamiliar human advantage over monkeys on same identity trials. The results give new insights into unfamiliar face processing, showing that in some ways unfamiliar faces might as well be another species.