Short Report

i-Perception
2020, Vol. 11(6), 1–11
A Geometrical Account to ! The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2041669520981094
Explain the Fat-Face Illusion journals.sagepub.com/home/ipe

Amit Rawal
Graduate Institute of Mind, Brain, & Consciousness, Taipei Medical
University, Taipei City

Philip Tseng
Graduate Institute of Mind, Brain, & Consciousness, Taipei Medical
University, Taipei City
Brain and Consciousness Research Center, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei
Medical University, Taipei City
Psychiatric Research Center, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical
University, Taipei City

Abstract
Investigations of the “fat-face” illusion have unanimously agreed that the illusion is face-specific.
Here, we offer several manipulations to highlight that the fat-face illusion is not restricted to the
bottom image, isn’t a property of internal features, facial contour/texture, and in general isn’t even
specific to faces. We propose the axis of horizontal asymmetry account to contextualize fat-face
illusion as a geometry-led illusion.

Keywords
face perception, frames of reference, shape, shapes/objects
Date received: 19 May 2020; accepted: 1 December 2020

Recent work on between-face comparisons for difference in apparent size (“fatness”) has
surfaced since Thompson’s (2010) “fat-face-thin illusion,” where a face appears thinner when
inverted than upright. Thompson & Wilson (2012) suggested the configuration of internal
facial features (eyes/nose/mouth) to be crucial, as the disrupted holistic processing in inverted
faces would lead to misjudgments about its external features (contour/geometry).

Corresponding author:
Philip Tseng, Graduate Institute of Mind, Brain, & Consciousness, Taipei Medical University, No. 250, Wuxing St., Taipei City
11031.
Email: [email protected]
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution
of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 i-Perception 11(6)

Figure 1. Fat-face illusion with upright, inverted, and side-aligned faces.

Importantly, Thompson concluded that the external features themselves do not contribute to
the “fat-face-thin illusion,” based on the observation that faces without internal features
appear equally fat.
Subsequently, Sun et al. (2012) reported a novel fat-face illusion that does not require
inversion. Two identical upright faces, when stacked vertically, make the lower face appear
4% “fatter.” They compared these to inverted faces and clocks and found the effect restricted
to upright faces. Importantly, line drawings of faces without facial features, or intact facial
features without face contour, were both sufficient in inducing the illusion (albeit weakly).
The authors concluded that face contour and internal features may, independently, activate a
face schema, sufficing to result in basic-level facial processing necessary for the illusion (Sun
et al., 2013).
Zhong et al. (2012) explored the effect of facial outlines using oval-, trapezoid-, and
hexagon-outlined faces. They found the illusion present for upright but not inverted ovals,
for upright and also inverted trapezoids (with direction of illusion reversed for inverted
trapezoids), and no effect for hexagon-outlined faces. These results are confusing because
the illusion for trapezoid faces depended entirely on orientation, yet oval faces only had an
effect for upright faces. The authors speculated that the absence of illusion in hexagon faces
was due to the lack of visual expertise for hexagonal faces.
Rawal and Tseng 3

Figure 2. A variant of face comparisons where sideways faces may result in the fat-face illusion.

Recently, Tomonaga (2015) mentioned insights by Kitaoka (2006), that the fat-face illu-
sion may be the result of a comparison between the lower (narrow) part of the upper face and
the upper (wider) part of the lower face, following a Jastrow–Esque comparison between the
two faces, rendering the lower face to appear “fatter.” Here, we expand on this idea and
present the axis of horizontal asymmetry (AHA) account that aims to explain the fat-face
illusion in terms of the geometry of the stimuli, where the compared stimulus may or may not
be a face.
In Figure 1, two separate faces are shown in different alignments, with corresponding
changes in the direction of illusion. In all alignments, one face’s chin (i.e., narrow) points to
another face/head (i.e., wider). The face being pointed at appears larger.
Following face comparisons in upright, inverted, and rotated orientations in Figure 1, we
attempt to create this illusion with sideways faces, where the face pointing at the back of the
other face may appear less wide. Similar to Figure 1, the effect may emerge in a case where
the narrower part (mouth/nose) meets the other’s wider back.
It was proposed by Sun et al. (2013) that the fat-face illusion operates via a top-down
mechanism that requires the activation of facial schema to facilitate the illusion. The AHA
account we propose would predict that as long as the geometry is preserved, the illusion
should persist. Therefore, we hypothesize that the illusion should be present in Figure 3, with
scrubbed facial features (middle) but also with a mere monochromatic head mask (left).
To test whether this illusion is face-specific, clocks and buildings comparisons are shown
in Figure 4. We predict that the canonical (upright) orientation of an object has little to do
with the fat “face” illusion. The first (circular) pair of clocks does not showcase the illusion
(Sun et al., 2012) because they are perfectly circular. However, as geometrical asymmetry is
introduced, the illusion becomes apparent in the trapezoid clock and building. The direction
4 i-Perception 11(6)

Figure 3. Faces without internal features, and head masks, may also induce the illusion.

of the illusion is predicted to be consistent with the geometrical account (i.e., pointy ¼
thinner/smaller; pointed ¼ fatter/larger).
So far, the AHA account posits that the horizontal asymmetry of the faces is
driving the previously reported findings. If so, then an existing effect should be strengthened
upon manipulation of this feature. This is attempted in Figure 5 by shaving the neck
and chin.
We further hypothesize that even the direction of the fat-face illusion should be reversed if
the geometry demands it. This is demonstrated in Figure 6 using a face with narrower top
and wider bottom. We predict a direction reversal in the illusion, which will further highlight
the influence of geometry.
Rawal and Tseng 5

Figure 4. Nonface stimuli, given a trapezoid-enough shape, can also induce illusion.
Circular and hexagonal shapes are unsuitable controls due to their perfect horizontal symmetry.

To validate our observations shown in the figures (Figures 1 to 6), we conducted a survey
via Google forms (N ¼ 61, 15 males, mean age ¼ 26, age range ¼ 19 to 42). For each question,
respondents were shown one pair of faces/objects and were instructed to make a binary
choice response by selecting the one that appeared relatively larger/fatter. To keep the size
of the images relatively similar across respondents, the instructions mandated the use of large
screens (not smartphones/tablets). The protocol of this survey was approved by the Joint
Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University.
The stimuli for survey consisted of 34 items, which included the two faces shown in
Figure 1, in upright, inverted, and rotated (right-pointing/left-pointing) orientations (8 com-
parisons), the two faces shown in Figure 2, presented in both right-facing and left-facing
orientations (4 comparisons), the two faces from Figure 3, with either the facial features
erased or with a mask of the whole head (8 comparisons), the round and trapezoid clocks,
and the trapezoid building from Figure 4 (6 comparisons), the original and modified face in
Figure 5 (2 comparisons), and the face in Figure 6 in upright and inverted orientation (2
comparisons).
In addition, to look for the possible effect of distance between the two stimuli, we took the
female face from Figure 1 and presented it upright at four more distances, which were twice
as distant as the original, and then again double the distance for each of the three subsequent
comparisons (four comparisons).
6 i-Perception 11(6)

Figure 5. Existing effects might seem modified/amplified if the geometry is changed such that the lower
region of face is pointier and top region is flatter/wider.
Original image (left) adapted from Sun et al. (2013).

The direction of the illusions was predicted by the AHA account, mentioned previously.
All of the 34 items (comparisons) were presented in three different randomized orders, and
20, 20, and 21 participants, respectively, responded to these orders. The number of responses
in the hypothesized direction, from these three orders, is shown in Table 1. Responses from
all participants (N ¼ 61) were pooled and compared against the hypothesized direction, using
one-sample binomial tests, against a chance level of 0.5 (50%) of picking either direction (up/
down or left/right). To quantify the effect size for these tests, we used Cohen’s g (Cohen,
1988), which is equal to [observed proportion—expected proportion (null)]. These compar-
isons are depicted in Figure 7, and effect size values are shown in Table 2. For a two-tailed
binomial test involving 61 participants, a statistically significant outcome would be one that
results in a Cohen’s g value of either at or above (0.139) or at or below (–0.139).
From the results (Figure 7 and Table 2), we can see that for most comparisons, an effect is
evident in the predicted direction. The exception is Comparison 24 (g ¼ –0.12), where out of
two leftward facing faces, majority of the responses indicated that the right face was larger,
while we predicted otherwise. Comparison 23 with rightward-facing faces also had majority
of the responses indicating the right face (predicted direction) to be larger (g ¼ 0.31). Because
the two comparisons used images that are mirror images of one another, it might be the case
that there is a rightward bias, but it seems particular to this stimulus because Comparisons
21 and 22, also mirrored-images, both received responses in the predicted directions (g ¼ 0.35
Rawal and Tseng 7

Figure 6. Face with opposite to common head shape may show a reversed fat-face illusion.

Table 1. Number of Successful Illusions in the Predicted Direction, per Comparison, for Each Order of
Stimulus Presentation.

Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Order #1 14 17 17 19 14 13 13 14 18 15 14 12 13 13 11 11 16
Order #2 17 17 18 18 12 16 11 15 19 17 13 12 16 11 14 13 11
Order #3 18 18 21 20 13 15 19 20 19 20 14 16 13 16 15 13 18

Comparison 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Order #1 14 15 13 15 13 17 9 9 13 19 19 17 18 14 14 11 14
Order #2 12 16 14 17 15 15 5 10 11 20 20 18 19 16 16 17 12
Order #3 18 16 14 20 14 18 9 11 10 21 21 19 18 19 16 18 17
Note. The three orders contain responses from 20, 20, and 21 participants, respectively.
8 i-Perception 11(6)

Figure 7. Summary of results:

The upper plot shows the effect size, Cohen’s g, of a one-sample binomial test (against 50%), for each
comparison. The greater the distance from zero, the stronger the effect. The direction of the comparison
was hypothesized by the AHA account (i.e., the stimulus that points to the other stimulus will look smaller/
thinner, and the pointed stimulus will look larger/fatter). The black lines mark the p ¼ .05 significance
threshold for the two-tailed tests. Statistically significant comparisons are ones with Cohen’s g values at or
above 0.139 (upper line) or at or below –0.139 (lower line). The montage at the bottom shows the images
corresponding to the comparisons (x axis) of the upper figure. (Note: For Comparisons 3, 4, 7, and 8, only
one rotated face [out of 2] is shown due to space constraints. Please refer to Figure 1 for the actual stimulus
images.) The only comparison that went against our predicted direction is Comparison 24. Null results in
Comparisons 25 and 26 are also consistent and predicted by the AHA account.

Table 2. Cohen’s g Values for the Comparisons Depicted in Figure 7.

Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cohen’s g 0.3 0.35 0.41 0.43 0.13 0.22 0.2 0.30 0.41 0.35 0.17 0.15

Comparison 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Cohen’s g 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.23 0.22 0.27 0.17 0.35 0.18 0.32 –0.12

Comparison 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Cohen’s g –0.008 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.38 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2

and g ¼ 0.18, respectively). Yet, due to the inconsistency, we leave this effect open to inter-
pretation. The rest of the comparisons, which are either vertically or horizontally stacked
faces/clocks/buildings, showed a consistent effect in the direction predicted by AHA.
Furthermore, Comparisons 25 and 26, where AHA predicts an absence of illusion (see
Firestone & Scholl, 2014) with upright and inverted round clocks, indeed resulted in near-
zero Cohen’s g of (–0.008) and (0.05), respectively. In contrast, both the upright and inverted
trapezoid clocks in Comparisons 27 and 28 resulted in an effect of (0.48), and the upright and
inverted trapezoid buildings in Comparisons 29 and 30 (Figure 4) resulted in effects of (0.38)
and (0.4), respectively. This makes it evident how this illusion is not specific to faces and not
caused by the relative “fatness” of one of the stimuli, given that clocks and buildings may
appear larger but not fatter, per se.
Rawal and Tseng 9

Figure 8. List of the presence and absence of the fat-face illusion (Sun et al., 2012, 2013; Zhong et al., 2012).

In addition, contrary to previous studies, inverted-face comparisons also showed a

(g > 0.1) effect, whether facial features were present or not (Comparisons 2, 6, 10, 12, 14,
and 16), but in the opposite direction (upper image appearing larger). Even faces rotated 90
degrees in the clockwise and counterclockwise direction showed (g > 0.2) effects, where the
face pointing the chin towards the other face appeared smaller (Comparisons 3, 4, 7, and 8).
And interestingly, a face with an opposite-to-canonical geometry, where the upper part of the
face is narrower than the lower part of the face, demonstrated a reversal in the direction
previously reported for faces, with the upper face appearing larger (g ¼ 0.27) for the upright
orientation, and the lower face appearing larger (g ¼ 0.17) in the inverted orientation
(Comparisons 19 and 20; Figure 6). This further highlights the influence of (facial) geometry
for this type of illusion and suggests that previous observations of the lower face appearing
fatter were likely driven by the canonical face geometry. For the faces shown in Figure 5, our
attempt at enhancing the strength of the illusion by sharpening the lower part of the face did
not result in a stronger effect (0.23 vs. 0.22). It seems to be the case that the illusion will not
become more prevalent upon enhancing the facial geometry, but it could be that the mag-
nitude of the illusion will be strengthened, for those who do experience the illusion. Future
studies could explore such differences in the magnitude of this illusion.
Finally, faces shown at incremental distance apart also showed an illusion, where the
effect seems to slowly decline with distance between the faces, with the original effect
(Comparison 1) being (0.3), and the effects for Comparisons 31 to 34 being (0.3), (0.25),
(0.25), and (0.2), respectively. This would be consistent with Kitaoka’s (2006) suggestion that
the fat-face illusion may be the result of a comparison between the lower (narrow) part of the
upper face and the upper (wider) part of the lower face. This potential effect of distance also
hints at a possible role of visual attention, or even local featural comparisons at the foveal
10 i-Perception 11(6)

level, though we can only speculate at this moment as the levels of attentional engagement or
viewing distance and visual angles cannot be properly controlled in an online study.
Nevertheless, this effect of distance opens up new possibilities for future studies that can
potentially reveal the mechanisms underlying the fat-face illusion and its AHA principles.
Following these results, we revisit previous studies to highlight how previous cases where
no illusion was observed also happened to have a symmetric geometry (Figure 8). The only
exception to this account is highlighted in red, where an oval face was found to exhibit the
illusion (Zhong et al., 2012).
In conclusion, we demonstrate how upright, inverted, horizontally aligned sideways faces
(perhaps) and also face masks and nonfaces (clock, buildings) may exhibit a “fat-face” illu-
sion. We think the AHA account can accommodate all variants of the fat-face illusion,
though other factors such as internal facial features may exert an additive effect and possibly
influence the perception of external features (Thompson & Wilson, 2012; Zhong et al., 2012).

Acknowledgements
We are thankful to one anonymous reviewer for suggesting the manipulation of vertical distance
between the two compared images (comparisons 31-34).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Philip Tseng https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5120-5979

References
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203771587
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco
fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38–46.
Kitaoka, A. (2006). Jastrow illusion of face. In Illusion of face. http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/
akitaoka/kao-e.html
Sun, Y. H., Ge, L., Quinn, P. C., Wang, Z., Xiao, N. G., Pascalis, O., Tanaka, J., & Lee, K. (2012). A
new “fat face” illusion. Perception, 41(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6906
Sun, Y. H., Quinn, P. C., Wang, Z., Shi, H., Zhong, M., Jin, H., Ge, L., Pascalis, O., Tanaka, J. W., &
Lee, K. (2013). Face contour is crucial to the fat face illusion. Perception, 42(5), 488–494. https://doi.
org/10.1068/p7439
Thompson, P. (2010, May). May top 10 finalists in the 2010 contest: The fat face thin (FFT) illusion.
Illusion Presented at the 7th Annual Best Illusion of the Year Contest, Naples, Florida. https://
www.newscientist.com/article/dn18903-illusions-contest-the-fat-face-thin-illusion/
Thompson, P., & Wilson, J. (2012). Why do most faces look thinner upside down? i-Perception, 3(10),
765–774. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0554
Tomonaga, M. (2015). Fat face illusion, or Jastrow illusion with faces, in humans but not in chimpan-
zees. i-Perception, 6(6), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669515622090
Rawal and Tseng 11

Zhong, M., Yu, X., Wang, Z., & Sun, Y. (2012). The contribution of face outlines to the fat face
illusion. In D. Peng (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Social Science and
Environmental Protection (SSEP), (pp. 593–595), Science and Engineering Publishing Company
(SEP).

How to cite this article

Rawal, A., & Tseng, P. (2020). A geometrical account to explain the fat-face illusion. i-Perception,
11(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520981094

Author Biographies
Amit Rawal is an ex-student and now graduate research assistant at the Graduate Institute
of Mind, Brain, and Consciousness, Taipei Medical University. He has worked on topics
such as sequence learning, subliminal processing, and face perception. He is currently work-
ing on the exploration of the temporal dynamics of perception.

Philip Tseng is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of Mind, Brain, and
Consciousness, Taipei Medical University. His research focuses on implicit perceptual and
attentional processes, as well as their effects on memory or other more complex tasks such as
driving, navigation, and deception. He is also a regular contributor to the psychology
column in Scientific American of Taiwan.