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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American