Vulnerability to distraction varies across the general population and significantly affects one’s capacity to stay focused on and successfully complete the task at hand, whether at school, on the road, or at work. In this talk, I will begin by discussing how distractibility is typically assessed in the literature and introduce our innovative ERP approach to measuring it. Since distractibility is a cardinal symptom of ADHD, I will introduce its most widely used paper-and-pencil screening tool for the general population as external validation. Following that, I will present the Load Theory of Attention and explain how we used perceptual load to test the reliability of our neural marker of distractibility. Finally, I will highlight potential future applications of this marker in clinical and educational settings.

Humans constantly make perceptual decisions on human faces and voices. These regularly come with the challenge of receiving only uncertain sensory evidence, resulting from noisy input and noisy neural processes. Efficiently adapting one’s internal decision system including prior expectations and subsequent metacognitive assessments to these challenges is crucial in everyday life. However, the exact decision mechanisms and whether these represent modifiable states remain unknown in the general population and clinical patients with psychosis. Using data from a laboratory-based sample of healthy controls and patients with psychosis as well as a complementary, large online sample of healthy controls, I will demonstrate how a combination of perceptual face and voice recognition decision fidelity, metacognitive ratings, and Bayesian computational modelling may be used as indicators to differentiate between non-clinical and clinical states in the future.

The nature of facial information that is stored by humans to recognise large amounts of faces is unclear despite decades of research in the field. To complicate matters further, little is known about how representations may evolve as novel faces become familiar, and there are large individual differences in the ability to recognise faces. I will present a theory I am developing and that assumes that facial representations are cost-efficient. In that framework, individual facial representations would incorporate different diagnostic features in different faces, regardless of familiarity, and would evolve depending on the relative stability in appearance over time. Further, coarse information would be prioritised over fine details in order to decrease storage demands. This would create low-cost facial representations that refine over time if appearance changes. Individual differences could partly rest on that ability to refine representation if needed. I will present data collected in the general population and in participants with developmental prosopagnosia. In support of the proposed view, typical observers and those with developmental prosopagnosia seem to rely on coarse peripheral features when they have no reason to expect someone’s appearance will change in the future.

Unfamiliar face processing (face cognition) ability varies considerably in the general population. However, the means of its assessment are not standardised, and selected laboratory tests vary between studies. It is also unclear whether 1) the most commonly employed tests are reliable, 2) participants show a degree of consistency in their performance, 3) and the face cognition tests broadly measure one underlying ability, akin to general intelligence. In this study, we asked participants to perform eight tests frequently employed in the individual differences literature. We examined the reliability of these tests, relationships between them, consistency in participants’ performance, and used data driven approaches to determine factors underpinning performance. Overall, our findings suggest that the reliability of these tests is poor to moderate, the correlations between them are weak, the consistency in participant performance across tasks is low and that performance can be broadly split into two factors: telling faces together, and telling faces apart. We recommend that future studies adjust analyses to account for stimuli (face images) and participants as random factors, routinely assess reliability, and that newly developed tests of face cognition are examined in the context of convergent validity with other commonly used measures of face cognition ability.

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.