Fig. 2. Experiments 4 to 6.

(A) Experiment 4. Experimental design was identical to Fig. 1 (A and B), except for an I.S.I. of 0, 1, 5, 10, or 15 s between the movie and static face. Incremental noise and high noise were added to the movie and static face (reference or test faces), respectively. Attraction percentage was computed with equally balanced increasing and decreasing age directions in the face morphing movie (Fig. 1, A and B). Static face age rating was attracted toward the movie at all tested I.S.I. (B to D) Experiment 5. (B and C) Thirteen groups of observers were presented with a movie with a face gradually aging from young to old (black line) and, after an I.S.I. of 1 s (gray line), were asked to rate the age of the static face (test faces; blue lines). The test face was randomly chosen by random sampling the video. As a control, the other 13 observers’ groups were asked to rate the age of a static face with the same ages (reference faces; dashed lines). (D) Standardization of previous graph in terms of the distance of test face rating from the reference baseline (white dots, dashed line). For each test face age, age error in test faces was computed as the difference between reference and test face (red squares). Negative and positive values indicate that the static face was rated as younger and older than what it actually was, respectively. As in Fig. 1A, when the test face was old, it was rated as much younger than what it actually was (white circles in the center). When the test face was even older (white circles on the right side), attraction gradually decreased. When the static face was younger (white circles on the left side), attraction gradually decreased and flipped to the opposite direction, i.e., a young test face was rated as older than what is actually was. Error bars are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. ***P < 0.0001. Photo credit: Anthony Cerniello. Computer-generated face images were slightly modified for visualization purposes.