Facial Memory Is Kernel Density Estimation (Almost)

We compare the ability of three exemplar-based memory models, each using three different face stimulus representations, to account for the probability a human subject responded "old" in an old/new facial memory experiment. The models are 1) the Generalized Context Model, 2) SimSample, a probabilistic sampling model, and 3) MMOM, a novel model related to kernel density estimation that explicitly encodes stimulus distinctiveness. The representations are 1) positions of stimuli in MDS "face space," 2) projections of test faces onto the "eigenfaces" of the study set, and 3) a representation based on response to a grid of Gabor filter jets. Of the 9 model/representation combinations, only the distinctiveness model in MDS space predicts the observed "morph familiarity inversion" effect, in which the subjects' false alarm rate for morphs between similar faces is higher than their hit rate for many of the studied faces. This evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that human memory for faces is a kernel density estimation task, with the caveat that distinctive faces require larger kernels than do typical faces.

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

[2]  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.

[3]  James Tanaka,et al.  Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition , 1998, Cognition.

[4]  G. Cottrell,et al.  Eigenfaces for Familiarity , 1998 .

[5]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Size and distortion invariant object recognition by hierarchical graph matching , 1990, 1990 IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[6]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[7]  Christopher M. Bishop,et al.  Neural networks for pattern recognition , 1995 .

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

[9]  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.

[10]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[11]  J. Eich A composite holographic associative recall model. , 1982 .

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

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

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

[15]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  A composite holographic associative recall model , 1982 .