In each validation trial, validators saw one of the 504 validation stimuli. Validators judged the numerical age of the face by typing a two-digit number between 18 and 80.

We instructed validators that the faces would span the full age range and warned them that the same facial identity might appear at different ages over the course of the experiment. At the end of the experiment, we also asked validators selleck screening library to judge the numerical age of the 12 average base faces, presented this time without any added mental representation, using the same procedure. Stimuli spanned 9.5° × 6.4° of visual angle and were presented one at a time on the computer screen until response, using a program written with the Psychtoolbox-3 [22, 23 and 24] for MATLAB R2012a. To tease apart the aging effect of the mental representations from the aging effect of the base faces, we subtracted in each trial the perceived

age of the base face from the perceived numerical age of the same base face plus mental representation. This resulted in one difference score per trial. For each validator, we took the median of these difference scores across trials, independently for each of the three age range categories. We submitted these difference scores to a repeated-measure ANOVA in SPSS (with the following factors: (1) younger versus older validators, (2) younger versus older participant Epacadostat mouse mental representations, (3) mental representation age ranges, 20–35, 40–55, and 60–80, and (4) individual versus averaged mental representations). We applied the Greenhouse-Geiser correction for nonsphericity. The Supplemental Information presents the full ANOVA. To determine the face features that predict the age of a face, we determined how individual face pixel intensities of the mental representations predict the validators’ age judgments. In a cross-validation, in each of 500 iterations, we randomly split the validators into two subsets. Using the first validator subset,

we first computed the median age of each mental representation (average and individual representations) of the design. Then, for each face pixel, we linearly regressed the mean of the age judgments with the mean pixel intensity values of the corresponding representations. For each face pixel, this parameterized http://www.selleck.co.jp/products/Adrucil(Fluorouracil).html a linear model. To cross-validate the model, we used the second subset of validator judgments and computed for each pixel the R2 measure of fit between the linear model and the new data (for a total of 500 R2 measures of fit per pixel). Figure 3 (Aging Prediction, left panel) shows the minimum predictive R2 value (computed over the 500 measures) of each pixel (R2 > = 0.25, F(1,40) = 13, p < 0.0005). The white circle at the nose wrinkle shows the pixel with the highest predictive power. For this pixel, the right panel illustrates the linear fit between pixel intensities (x axis) and mean age judgment (y axis).