Volume 25, Issue 20, Pages (October 2015)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci ;57(1): doi: /iovs Figure Legend:
Advertisements

Volume 16, Issue 13, Pages (July 2006)
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages (December 2016)
Why some bird brains are larger than others
Volume 23, Issue 16, Pages R673-R676 (August 2013)
Illusory Jitter Perceived at the Frequency of Alpha Oscillations
Decision Making during the Psychological Refractory Period
Musical Consonance: The Importance of Harmonicity
Natalia Zaretskaya, Andreas Bartels  Current Biology 
Aaron R. Seitz, Praveen K. Pilly, Christopher C. Pack  Current Biology 
Volume 27, Issue 22, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Pre-constancy Vision in Infants
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages e5 (April 2018)
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages (June 2014)
With Age Comes Representational Wisdom in Social Signals
Sexual Selection: Roles Evolving
Avi J.H. Chanales, Ashima Oza, Serra E. Favila, Brice A. Kuhl 
Volume 17, Issue 24, Pages (December 2007)
Sexual Dimorphism in the Hoverfly Motion Vision Pathway
Age-Dependent Usage of Double-Strand-Break Repair Pathways
Sergei Gepshtein, Martin S. Banks  Current Biology 
Grid Cells Encode Local Positional Information
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages (January 2016)
Selective Attention in an Insect Visual Neuron
There's more to magic than meets the eye
A twin approach to unraveling epigenetics
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages (October 2010)
Genetic Determinants of the Gut Microbiome in UK Twins
Learning Biases Underlie “Universals” in Avian Vocal Sequencing
Margarita V. Chibalina, Dmitry A. Filatov  Current Biology 
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages (March 2017)
Sex Ratios: Human Twins and Fraternal Effects
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages (April 2016)
Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal
Children, but Not Chimpanzees, Prefer to Collaborate
Evolution: Mirror, Mirror in the Pond
Marian Stewart Bartlett, Gwen C. Littlewort, Mark G. Frank, Kang Lee 
Avi J.H. Chanales, Ashima Oza, Serra E. Favila, Brice A. Kuhl 
Walter Jetz, Dustin R. Rubenstein  Current Biology 
The Occipital Place Area Is Causally Involved in Representing Environmental Boundaries during Navigation  Joshua B. Julian, Jack Ryan, Roy H. Hamilton,
Jeremy B. Wilmer, Ken Nakayama  Neuron 
Sonal S. Joshi, Victoria H. Meller  Current Biology 
Volume 25, Issue 15, Pages (August 2015)
Grid Cells Encode Local Positional Information
Evidence that Magnetic Navigation and Geomagnetic Imprinting Shape Spatial Genetic Variation in Sea Turtles  J. Roger Brothers, Kenneth J. Lohmann  Current.
Adaptation can explain evidence for encoding of probabilistic information in macaque inferior temporal cortex  Kasper Vinken, Rufin Vogels  Current Biology 
Social Signals in Primate Orbitofrontal Cortex
Volume 23, Issue 21, Pages (November 2013)
Scale insects Current Biology
Steven K. Schwartz, William E. Wagner, Eileen A. Hebets 
David Pitcher, Vincent Walsh, Galit Yovel, Bradley Duchaine 
Dissociable Effects of Salience on Attention and Goal-Directed Action
Diversification of a Food-Mimicking Male Ornament via Sensory Drive
Microsaccades: a neurophysiological analysis
Auditory-Visual Crossmodal Integration in Perception of Face Gender
Volume 18, Issue 17, Pages R728-R729 (September 2008)
Vivian G. Cheung, Alan Bruzel, Joshua T
Octopus Movement: Push Right, Go Left
Volume 16, Issue 20, Pages (October 2006)
Self-Control in Chimpanzees Relates to General Intelligence
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages (February 2015)
Knowledgeable Lemurs Become More Central in Social Networks
Volume 16, Issue 13, Pages (July 2006)
Kevin R. Foster, Thomas Bell  Current Biology 
Age-Related Declines of Stability in Visual Perceptual Learning
Heritability of the Specific Cognitive Ability of Face Perception
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages e5 (April 2018)
Male Fish Deceive Competitors about Mating Preferences
Matthew W. Hahn, Gregory C. Lanzaro  Current Biology 
Predicting Individual Differences
Presentation transcript:

Volume 25, Issue 20, Pages 2684-2689 (October 2015) Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes  Laura Germine, Richard Russell, P. Matthew Bronstad, Gabriëlla A.M. Blokland, Jordan W. Smoller, Holum Kwok, Samuel E. Anthony, Ken Nakayama, Gillian Rhodes, Jeremy B. Wilmer  Current Biology  Volume 25, Issue 20, Pages 2684-2689 (October 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Common and Individual Preferences for Faces (A–C) To calculate common and individual preferences for faces, participants rated the attractiveness of 200 faces. The mean ratings by male participants were very highly correlated with the mean ratings by female participants when rating both female faces (B) and male faces (C), indicating face preferences held in common across participants. When looking at the correlation between individual participant ratings and mean ratings, however, individual differences in face preferences become evident. (D–F) In (D) and (E), data are displayed from two individual participants. The first participant (D) shows very high agreement with mean ratings. The second participant (E) had lower agreement with mean ratings. Notably, these two participants had similar response consistency of face ratings (inset graph) based on a subset of faces (60/200) that were rated a second time. By comparing inter-participant correlations with intra-participant correlations for the 60 faces that were rated twice (see Supplemental Information: Individual vs. Common Preferences), we estimate that 48% of the variation in face ratings can be explained by common preferences (those that overlap between two typical individuals), with the remaining 52% of the variation in face ratings attributable to individual face preferences (those that do not overlap between two typical individuals) (F). In all plots, each dot represents one face stimulus, and Pearson correlation coefficients are given in the upper-left or lower-right corners. Individual participant ratings in (D) and (E) are jittered for visibility. See also Table S1 and Reliability Analysis in Supplemental Information. Current Biology 2015 25, 2684-2689DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Individual Face Preferences and Face Recognition (A) Shown are face IP scores for monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs and dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs. Scores from one twin are plotted on the x axis, with scores from that person’s co-twin on the y axis. Maximum likelihood correlations are shown. MZ correlations represent the combined impact of shared genetic variation and shared environments (family resemblance), whereas the difference between MZ and DZ correlations can be used to estimate the contribution of genetic variation, specifically. (B) Maximum likelihood model fitting was applied to MZ and DZ twin data to estimate A (additive genetic), C (shared environmental), and E (unshared environmental) contributions to face IP scores. Error bars give 95% CIs around each estimate (bounded by zero on the lower end). (C) The best-fit model included contributions from both additive genetic (A) and individual or unshared environmental (E) factors. Estimates of genetic and environmental contributions to both face recognition and face IP scores (face preferences) are shown, with error bars indicating 95% CIs around each estimate. Arrows indicate the upper boundary for “A” estimates, based on the test-retest reliability of each measure. Based on AE model estimates, (1) almost all of the reliable variation in face recognition is due to variations in genes, and (2) most of the reliable variation in face IP is attributable to variations in environments. This dissociation in heritability suggests that there are distinct genetic and etiological mechanisms underlying these two core social-perceptual phenotypes. See also Figure S1 and Table S2. Current Biology 2015 25, 2684-2689DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions