Has the Virtualization of the Face Changed Facial Perception? A Study of the Impact of Photo Editing and Augmented Reality on Facial Perception

Overview

• This paper investigates how people perceive faces that have been modified using various photo editing filters, including traditional face filters and augmented reality (AR) filters.
• The researchers conducted six surveys to measure people's familiarity with different filter styles, their perceived "strangeness" of filtered faces, and their ability to identify whether an image has been filtered.
• The results show that faces modified with traditional photo editing filters are perceived similarly to unmodified faces, while faces filtered with AR-style filters are perceived as different from unmodified faces.
• The paper discusses possible reasons for these findings, such as societal adjustment to traditional photo editing or inherent differences between the filter types.
• The researchers conclude with a discussion of how to build online spaces more responsibly based on the study's results.

Plain English Explanation

These days, it's very common for people to use photo editing apps and filters to modify their faces online. This can include things like smoothing blemishes, enlarging eyes, or adding virtual makeup. Since our ability to recognize and understand faces is so important for communication, the researchers wanted to know how we perceive all these edited faces.

The researchers had people take six different surveys. In these surveys, they asked about people's familiarity with different types of face filters, how strange or unusual the edited faces looked, and whether people could tell if an image had been filtered or not.

The results showed that faces edited with more traditional photo editing techniques were perceived similarly to unmodified faces. However, faces edited using augmented reality (AR) filters were seen as quite different from unnatural-looking faces.

The researchers think there could be a few reasons for this. Maybe as a society, we've just gotten used to the subtle changes made by traditional photo editing. Or perhaps there's something inherently more "unnatural" about the way AR filters alter faces.

Ultimately, the researchers suggest that these findings could help guide how we design online spaces and experiences, to make them more responsible and reflective of how people actually perceive edited faces. By understanding these perceptions, we can create online environments that are more authentic and beneficial for everyone.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted a series of six surveys to investigate how people perceive faces that have been modified using various photo editing techniques, including traditional face filters and augmented reality (AR) filters.

In the first survey, participants rated their familiarity with different filter styles, such as skin smoothing, eye enlargement, and virtual makeup. The second and third surveys measured participants' perceived "strangeness" of faces edited with different filters, compared to unmodified faces.

The fourth and fifth surveys tested participants' ability to accurately identify whether an image had been filtered or not. This allowed the researchers to assess how well people can detect the use of various editing techniques.

Finally, the sixth survey explored whether the perceived strangeness of filtered faces varied depending on the gender or attractiveness of the face.

The results showed that faces modified with traditional photo editing filters were perceived as similarly "normal" as unmodified faces. In contrast, faces edited using AR-style filters were consistently rated as more strange and unnatural-looking.

The researchers suggest that these findings may be due to societal familiarity and adjustment to traditional photo editing techniques over time. They hypothesize that the more dramatic and artificial-looking changes made by AR filters stand out as different from natural faces.

The paper discusses the implications of these results for building online spaces and experiences that account for people's perceptions of edited faces. By understanding how different filter styles are viewed, designers can work to create more authentic and responsible digital environments.

Critical Analysis

The research presented in this paper provides valuable insights into how people perceive faces that have been modified using various photo editing techniques. The researchers' use of multiple, well-designed surveys to gather data on familiarity, perceived strangeness, and detection ability gives the findings a strong empirical foundation.

However, some limitations and areas for further research are worth noting. First, the study focused primarily on static, single-image perceptions, whereas in the real world, people often encounter edited faces in dynamic, social contexts. It would be interesting to see how these perceptions might differ when faces are viewed in motion or as part of an interactive experience.

Additionally, the surveys were conducted with participants from a limited demographic (primarily U.S.-based university students). Expanding the sample to include more diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds, and levels of digital literacy could reveal important differences in how edited faces are perceived.

The paper also does not delve deeply into the potential psychological or societal implications of these perceptions. For example, how might the normalization of edited faces impact self-esteem, body image, or interpersonal communication? Further research in this direction could help shape more responsible design guidelines for online spaces.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on the impacts of photo editing and augmented reality technologies. By continuing to investigate these issues, the research community can help guide the development of digital platforms and experiences that are more authentic and beneficial for users.

Conclusion

This paper presents the results of six surveys that explore how people perceive faces that have been modified using various photo editing techniques, including traditional face filters and augmented reality (AR) filters.

The key findings are that faces edited with traditional photo editing methods are perceived similarly to unmodified faces, while faces edited with AR-style filters are consistently seen as more "strange" and unnatural-looking. The researchers suggest that this may be due to societal familiarity with traditional photo editing or inherent differences in the visual impact of the different filter types.

These insights have important implications for the design of online spaces and experiences, where edited faces are increasingly common. By understanding how people perceive and respond to various filter styles, developers can work to create more authentic and responsible digital environments that account for the complex psychological and social factors at play.

Continued research in this area, exploring additional contexts and demographics, will be crucial for guiding the ethical development of photo editing, AR, and other emerging technologies that influence how we present and perceive ourselves online.