Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems.

Computer-driven systems for constructing composite faces of suspects (E-fit; Mac-a-Mug) have largely replaced mechanical systems (Photofit; the Identikit) in police use, yet little is known of their comparative effectiveness in rendering an accurate likeness. Participants (N = 24) constructed 2 of 4 familiar or unfamiliar faces, for one of which they used Photofit and for the other, E-fit. A likeness of each face was made first under target-absent conditions and then with photographs of the target present. The accuracy of the resulting composites was assessed by familiarity ratings, names elicited, and matching accuracy. The computer-driven system showed consistent superiority only when a familiar face was constructed in the presence of photographs; when participants worked from memory, E-fit was no better than Photofit. The implications of these findings for theories of face retrieval and the operational use of composites are discussed.

[1]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. , 1981 .

[2]  Baruch Cahlon,et al.  To catch a thief with a recognition test: The model and some empirical results , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  A. M. Levi,et al.  Using similarity judgments to conduct a mugshot album search , 1995 .

[4]  Graham Davies,et al.  Eyewitness Composite Production , 1985 .

[5]  T. Whalen,et al.  Computerized feature retrieval of images: suspect identification , 1995 .

[6]  H. Ellis,et al.  Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation. , 1978 .

[7]  G. Davies,et al.  Face recall: an examination of some factors limiting composite production accuracy. , 1982, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  David C. Raskin,et al.  Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence , 1989 .

[9]  Ronald P. Fisher,et al.  Constructing facial composites with the mac-a-mug pro system , 1997 .

[10]  Felicity Gibling,et al.  Artistic enhancement in the production of photo-fit likenesses: An examination of its effectiveness in leading to suspect identification , 1994 .

[11]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Face composite construction : in-view and from-memory quality and improvement with practice , 1991 .

[12]  S. Brodsky.  Criminal Justice and Behavior , 1980 .

[13]  H. Ellis,et al.  Perceiving and remembering faces , 1983 .

[14]  Margaret Bull Kovera,et al.  Identification of computer-generated facial composites. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Identification from a computer-driven retrieval system compared with a traditional mug-shot album search: a new tool for police investigations , 1989 .

[16]  K. Laughery,et al.  Sketch artist and Identi-kit procedures for recalling faces. , 1980 .

[17]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  On Training People to Recognize Faces , 1979 .

[18]  H. Ellis,et al.  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE USE OF THE PHOTO-FIT TECHNIQUE FOR RECALLING FACES* , 1975 .

[19]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  A heuristic strategy for developing human facial images on a CRT , 1975, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Remembering pictures of real and unreal faces: Some practical and theoretical considerations. , 1978 .

[21]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[22]  Brian R. Clifford,et al.  Procedures for obtaining identification evidence. , 1989 .

[23]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Evaluating a new computer-based system for face recall , 1981 .

[24]  P. E. Morris,et al.  Practical aspects of memory : current research and issues , 1988 .

[25]  G. Wells,et al.  Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[26]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. , 1996 .