May 5, 2008

The Lure of Bette Davis Eyes

Two scientists from the University of Bremen have found that groups of brain cells within the temporal lobe of macaque monkeys, are not only dedicated to recognizing facial features, but each cell is responsible for specific sub-sets of facial features, like eye size.

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Podcast Transcript: Out of all the features in a face, we might guess the eyes hold court. And the larger, the better. Think Bette Davis, nocturnal tarsiers, babies…

Recently, scientists have started to uncover fascinating physiological explanations for why we might like big eyes.

Doris Tsao and Winrich Freiwald of the University of Bremen, Germany, defined 19 features of faces—such as the distance between the nose and mouth, or the size of an iris.

Then they presented various cartoon faces to macaque monkeys, while recording the activity of individual brain cells.

They found that not only are all cells within a specific region of the temporal lobe dedicated solely to face recognition, each of those cells are solely dedicated to a specific subset of facial features.

For instance, the greatest number of cells respond specifically to iris size. And the response is directly proportional to the size of the iris. The more extreme the iris, the more vigorous the reaction of the cells.

Hm...might finally explain the skyrocketing YouTube popularity of the real-life anime character, MRirian, a 21-year-old who just stares and blinks into her Webcam. She has views in the millions. I guess it’s all in her huge round eyes.

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American