Identity-level representations affect unfamiliar face matching performance in sequential but not simultaneous tasks

According to cognitive and neurological models of the face-processing system, faces are represented at two levels of abstraction. First, image-based pictorial representations code a particular instance of a face and include information that is unrelated to identity—such as lighting, pose, and expression. Second, at a more abstract level, identity-specific representations combine information from various encounters with a single face. Here we tested whether identity-level representations mediate unfamiliar face matching performance. Across three experiments we manipulated identity attributions to pairs of target images and measured the effect on subsequent identification decisions. Participants were instructed that target images were either two photos of the same person (1ID condition) or photos of two different people (2ID condition). This manipulation consistently affected performance in sequential matching: 1ID instructions improved accuracy on “match” trials and caused participants to adopt a more liberal response bias than the 2ID condition. However, this manipulation did not affect performance in simultaneous matching. We conclude that identity-level representations, generated in working memory, influence the amount of variation tolerated between images, when making identity judgements in sequential face matching.

[1]  Peter Claes,et al.  How Different is Different? Criterion and Sensitivity in Face-Space , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[2]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  The Other-Race Effect does not Rely on Memory: Evidence from a Matching Task , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Recognizing Famous Faces: Exploring the Benefits of Facial Motion , 2000 .

[4]  V. Bruce Stability from Variation: The Case of Face Recognition the M.D. Vernon Memorial Lecture , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[5]  Petter Johansson,et al.  Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task , 2005, Science.

[6]  V. Bruce Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[7]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  When High-Quality Face Images Match Poorly | NIST , 2011 .

[8]  G. Pike,et al.  When Seeing should not be Believing: Photographs, Credit Cards and Fraud , 1997 .

[9]  Douglas Martin,et al.  Getting to know you: From view-dependent to view-invariant repetition priming for unfamiliar faces , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  A. Burton,et al.  The Glasgow Face Matching Test , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[11]  Sarah V. Stevenage,et al.  Internal feature saliency as a marker of familiarity and configural processing , 2008 .

[12]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  When high-quality face images match poorly , 2011, Face and Gesture 2011.

[13]  A. Burton,et al.  Variability in photos of the same face , 2011, Cognition.

[14]  A. Mike Burton,et al.  Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? : The importance of variability , 2013 .

[15]  M. Bruck,et al.  Fortysomething: Recognizing faces at one’s 25th reunion , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[16]  V. Bruce,et al.  Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[17]  C. Buss,et al.  Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[18]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  A bottleneck in face identification: repetition priming from flanker images. , 2007, Experimental psychology.

[19]  R A Johnston,et al.  Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. , 1990, British journal of psychology.

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

[21]  A. Burton,et al.  Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[22]  H Stanislaw,et al.  Calculation of signal detection theory measures , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[23]  Ahmed M. Megreya,et al.  Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Peter J. B. Hancock,et al.  From Pixels to People: A Model of Familiar Face Recognition , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognition of unfamiliar faces , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  P. Hancock,et al.  Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[28]  Markus Bindemann,et al.  Me, Myself, and I: Different Recognition Rates for Three Photo-IDs of the Same Person , 2011, Perception.

[29]  R. Johnston,et al.  Exploring Levels of Face Familiarity by Using an Indirect Face-Matching Measure , 2002, Perception.

[30]  R. Johnston,et al.  Matching as an index of face familiarity , 2004 .

[31]  Ahmed M Megreya,et al.  Matching faces to photographs: poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[32]  A. Burton,et al.  Mental representations of familiar faces. , 2011, British journal of psychology.

[33]  R. Johnston,et al.  Demonstrating how unfamiliar faces become familiar using a face matching task , 2005 .