Face Representation: Percept or Concept? Key Factors in Representation Formation

• Published in: Вестник Московского университета. Серия 14: Психология
• Main Authors: Alexandra I. Kurenkova, Elizaveta G. Luniakova
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Lomonosov Moscow State University 2025-12-01
• Subjects: cognitive psychology; face perception; face recognition; representation; face memory; perceptual representation; conceptual representation; perceptual variability
• Online Access: https://msupsyj.ru/en/articles/article/11677/
• ISSN: 0137-0936; 2309-9852

Background. Numerous experimental studies indicate high accuracy in recognising familiar faces, which is commonly attributed to the formation of generalised face representations. However, it remains unclear what specific information is generalised in these representations and which factors influence their formation. Objective. The scope of the article is to review and systematise findings from modern research on the factors affecting the formation of face representations. Methods. A theoretical review and analysis of studies published between 2015 and 2025 was conducted. Literature search was performed in the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and eLibrary databases using the following keywords: “face recognition”, “face representation”, “face learning”, “perceptual learning”, “variability”, “social learning”, “familiar faces”, “familiarity”. Results. The analysis of the literature reveals two main approaches to studying the formation of face representations, each emphasising different factors. Within the first approach, perceptual information — specifically, the idiosyncratic within-person variability of a face — constitutes the core content of its representation. The primary factor shaping this representation is the perceptual variability in the observed stimuli. Experimental evidence supports the positive impact of variability in photographs of memorised faces on subsequent recognition — provided certain conditions are met, particularly the availability of cues for the correct interpretation of variability as a within-person change. According to the second approach, the content of face representations is not limited to within-person variability: supplementary knowledge about a person (e.g., name, profession, behaviour) also contributes to generalised representations and may be integrated into their content. Conclusions. Research findings suggest that the form and content of face representations evolve with familiarity, transforming from a “percept” into a “concept”. This perspective challenges traditional stage-based models of face processing, prompting a shift toward levels-of-processing frameworks. This approach enables a more comprehensive investigation of face perception within the context of human social cognition. In this regard, unexplored factors — such as the perceiver’s active engagement and their interpersonal attitudes — appear particularly promising for future research.