## 3 Results
### Subjective Evaluation  
The mean and standard deviations of subjective evaluations for each type of facial image are summarised in Table 2. As for attractiveness evaluation, participants rated other familiar face significantly more attractive than their own face, \(F\) (1, 17) = 28.4, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001, \({\eta_{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.63. There was also a significant main effect of Version, \(F\) (2, 34) = 31.2, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001, \({\eta_{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.65. Multiple comparisons revealed significantly higher attractiveness rating to enhanced than the original, \(t\) (17) = 2.18, _adjusted_\(p\) = 0.044, and degraded version, \(t\) (17) = 5.99, _adjusted_\(p\) \(<\) 0.001. Original images were rated more attractive than the degraded version, \(t\) (17) = 6.22, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001. The interaction between Identity and Version failed to reach significance, \(F\) (2, 34) = 0.04, \(p\) = 0.96, \({\eta_{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.002.  
As for prettiness evaluation, participants rated other familiar faces as significantly prettier than their own face, \(F\) (1, 17) = 25.6, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001, \({\eta_{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.60. There was also a significant main effect of Version, \(F\) (2, 34) = 30.9, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001, \({\eta_{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.65. Multiple comparisons revealed significantly higher prettiness rating to enhanced than the original, \(t\) (17) = 4.02, _adjusted_\(p\) \(<\) 0.001, and degraded version, \(t\) (17) = 5.91, _adjusted_\(p\) \(<\) 0.001. Original images were rated prettier than the degraded version, \(t\) (17) = 5.89, _adjusted_\(p\) \(<\) 0.001. The inter  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Self**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Other Familiar**} \\  & **Original** & **Enhanced** & **Degraded** & **Original** & **Enhanced** & **Degraded** \\ \hline Attractiveness & 9.4 & 10.5 & 5.5 & 13.2 & 14.3 & 9.1 \\  & (3.9) & (3.3) & (3.1) & (1.5) & (2.6) & (1.9) \\ Prettiness & 8.9 & 11.1 & 5.9 & 12.4 & 14.6 & 9.3 \\  & (3.4) & (3.7) & (3.1) & (1.4) & (2.5) & (2.1) \\ Similarity & 18.6 & 15.3 & 14.8 & 4.8 & 4.9 & 5.1 \\  & (3.3) & (3.4) & (2.9) & (3.1) & (3.1) & (3.0) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Subjective ratings given to faces in each condition. In the parenthesis are the standard deviations.  
Figure 8: Temporal generalization matrix for classification of self and other familiar faces in each condition. In the upper panes, colour represents the values of AUC. The significant cluster is described in red in the lower panels.  
action between Identity and Version failed to reach significance, \(F\) (2, 34) = 0.046, \(p\) = 0.96, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.003.  
As for self-similarity ratings, the ANOVA revealed significant main effects of Identity, \(F\) (1, 17) = 140.9, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.89, and Version, \(F\) (2, 34) = 6.29, \(p\) = 0.005, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.27. These main effects are qualified by a significant interaction between Identity and Version, \(F\) (2, 34) = 13.57, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.44. A simple main effect of Version was significant in self, \(F\) (2, 34) =10.44, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.38, but not in familiar condition, \(F\) (2, 34) = 0.42, \(p\) = 0.66, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.02. Multiple comparisons revealed that the original image was rated more similar to self-face than to the enhanced, \(t\) (17) = 3.22, _adjusted_\(p\) = 0.005, and degraded version, \(t\) (17) = 4.63, _adjusted_\(p\) < 0.001. The self-similarity ratings for enhanced and degraded versions did not differ significantly between each other, \(t\) (17) = 0.61, _adjusted_\(p\) = 0.55.