1. Face Pareidolia in the Rhesus Monkey
Jessica Taubert, Susan G. Wardle, Molly Flessert, David A. Leopold, Leslie G. Ungerleider 
Current Biology 
Volume 27, Issue 16, Pages e2 (August 2017)
DOI: /j.cub
Copyright © Terms and Conditions

2. Current Biology 2017 27, 2505-2509.e2DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.075)
Copyright © Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 1 Experimental Methods
(A) Examples of the three stimulus types used (from left to right: unfamiliar female monkeys, illusory faces, and non-face objects). The non-face objects were selected from the public domain on the basis that they matched the examples of illusory faces for object content.
(B) The results of the human experiment. Here, the rows represent individual subject data (n = 10) and columns represent the 45 images comprising the stimulus set. Importantly, none of the non-face objects was rated as being “face-like” (>100) on a 200-point scale (Mnon-face objects = 5.24; SEM = 0.45). Two pairwise contrasts confirmed that the non-face objects had a significantly smaller average score than either the monkey faces (p < 0.01, η2 = 0.99) or illusory faces (p < 0.01, η2 = 0.99).
(C) The trial procedure for the three conditions of interest in the monkey experiment. Each trial consisted of three time periods: fixation, free viewing, and reward after successful trial completion or time out after trial aborts.
Current Biology  , e2DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 2 Experimental Results
(A) Bar graph indicates the average proportion of time spent looking at stimuli as a function of condition (error bars = ±SEM). We found the expected advantage for monkey faces over objects, together with the hypothesized advantage for illusory faces over objects. We computed the average mean difference in each condition (monkey faces LT subtracted from illusory faces LT [I − M]; non-face objects LT subtracted from illusory faces LT [I − O]; non-face objects LT subtracted from monkey faces LT [M − O]) and performed a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.86) to confirm that illusory face paired with monkey face trials elicited the smallest stimulus preference (paired t tests, two-tailed; [I − M] versus [I − O], p < 0.01, η2 = 0.97; [I − M] versus [M − O], p = 0.016, η2 = 0.80; [I − O] versus [M − O], p = η2 = 0.24).
(B) Bar graph demonstrating the distribution of first fixations in the three conditions of interest (the number of first fixations is expressed as a proportion of the total number of trials in each condition; error bars = ±SEM). An analysis of the first fixation data indicated that, in trials where monkey faces were presented with non-face objects, subjects fixated the monkey faces first and more often (p = 0.01, η2 = 0.92). There was a similar advantage for illusory faces over non-face objects (p = 0.01, η2 = 0.96). As with the LT data, this analysis also revealed a significant preference for illusory faces over monkey faces (p = 0.01, η2 = 0.92).
See also Figure S1.
Current Biology  , e2DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © Terms and Conditions

5. Figure 3
Fixations Calibrated in Degrees of Visual Angle and Superimposed on Stimuli
(A) Average number of fixations (≥150 ms) in two-dimensional density plots (three examples from each stimulus type; top row, monkey faces; middle row, illusory faces; bottom row, non-face objects). Data were normalized to each subject’s maximum fixation count and then averaged across subjects before being smoothed and superimposed on the corresponding stimulus for illustration using MATLAB’s surf function with interpolated shading. Unsmoothed data for every stimulus, together with individual subject maps (before averaging), are available in the Figure S3.
(B) The range of grand r values as a function of stimulus type. After vectorizing the normalized fixation count data for each subject, we cross-correlated across subjects. This process yielded ten r values that were then averaged together to yield a single “grand r value” per stimulus. The lower r values evident for the non-face objects reflect the greater variance among individual subjects.
(C) Classifier performance as a function of subject; the classifier was trained with 93.33% of the data (i.e., 14 out of 15 illusory face/non-face pairs) and tested with the remaining content-matched pair. Chance performance is 50%.
See also Figures S2 and S3.
Current Biology  , e2DOI: ( /j.cub )
Copyright © Terms and Conditions