Eigenfaces for Familiarity

A previous experiment tested subjects’ new/old judgments of previously-studied faces, distractors, and morphs betw e n pairs of studied parents. We examine the extent to which models based on principal component analysis (eigenfaces) can predict human recognition of studied faces and false alarms to the distractors and morphs. We also compare eigenface model s to the predictions of previous models based on the positions of faces in a multidimensional “face space” derived from a multidimensional scaling (MDS) of human similarity ratings. W e find that the error in reconstructing a test face from its posi tion in an “eigenface space” provides a good overall predict ion of human familiarity ratings. However, the model has difficulty accounting for the fact that humans false alarm to morp hs with similar parents more frequently than they false alarm t o morphs with dissimilar parents. We ascribe this to the limit ations of the simple reconstruction error-based model. We th en outline preliminary work to improve the fine-grained fit with in the eigenface-based modeling framework, and discuss the re sults’ implications for exemplarand face space-based mod els of face processing.

[1]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  A physical system approach to recognition memory for spatially transformed faces , 1988, Neural Networks.

[2]  D I Perrett,et al.  Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[4]  M. T. Reinitz,et al.  Memory-conjunction errors: Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[5]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  R. L. Solso,et al.  Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo-memory , 1981 .

[7]  R. Forthofer,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1981 .

[8]  Paul W. Munro,et al.  Principal Components Analysis Of Images Via Back Propagation , 1988, Other Conferences.

[9]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Neural networks and principal component analysis: Learning from examples without local minima , 1989, Neural Networks.

[10]  M. Turk,et al.  Eigenfaces for Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  G. Cottrell,et al.  Cognitive Binding: A Computational-Modeling Analysis of a Distinction between Implicit and Explicit Memory , 1992, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Dean Pomerleau,et al.  Input Reconstruction Reliability Estimation , 1992, NIPS.

[13]  T A Busey,et al.  Accounts of blending, distinctiveness, and typicality in the false recognition of faces. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  T. Valentine,et al.  Towards an Exemplar Model of Face Processing: The Effects of Race and Distinctiveness , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.