Configural and featural information in facial-composite images.

Eyewitnesses are often invited to construct a facial composite, an image created of the person they saw commit a crime that is used by law enforcement to locate criminal suspects. In the current paper, the effectiveness of composite images was investigated from traditional feature systems (E-FIT and PRO-fit), where participants (face constructors) selected individual features to build the face, and a more recent holistic system (EvoFIT), where they 'evolved' a composite by repeatedly selecting from arrays of complete faces. Further participants attempted to name these composites when seen as an unaltered image, or when blurred, rotated, linearly stretched or converted to a photographic negative. All of the manipulations tested reduced correct naming of the composites overall except (i) for a low level of blur, for which naming improved for holistic composites but reduced for feature composites, and (ii) for 100% linear stretch, for which a substantial naming advantage was observed. Results also indicated that both featural (facial elements) and configural (feature spacing) information were useful for recognition in both types of composite system, but highly-detailed information was more accurate in the feature-based than in the holistic method. The naming advantage of linear stretch was replicated using a forensically more-practical procedure with observers viewing an unaltered composite sideways. The work is valuable to police practitioners and designers of facial-composite systems.

[1]  G. Hole,et al.  Is There a Linear or a Nonlinear Relationship between Rotation and Configural Processing of Faces? , 2002, Perception.

[2]  K. Fujii,et al.  Visualization for the analysis of fluid motion , 2005, J. Vis..

[3]  Adrian Schwaninger,et al.  Role of Featural and Configural Information in Familiar and Unfamiliar Face Recognition , 2002, Biologically Motivated Computer Vision.

[4]  A Johnston,et al.  Shape from Shading. I: Surface Curvature and Orientation , 1994, Perception.

[5]  I. Biederman,et al.  Is Pigmentation Important for Face Recognition? Evidence from Contrast Negation , 2006, Perception.

[6]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Four heads are better than one: combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  V Bruce,et al.  Modelling face recognition. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[9]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Improving the quality of facial composites using a holistic cognitive interview. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[10]  B. Rossion,et al.  Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: evidence from the face composite illusion. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[11]  C. McManus,et al.  Sensitivity to the Displacement of Facial Features in Negative and Inverted Images , 1990, Perception.

[12]  G. Hole Configurational Factors in the Perception of Unfamiliar Faces , 1994, Perception.

[13]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[14]  A. Mizuno,et al.  A change of the leading player in flow Visualization technique , 2006, J. Vis..

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

[16]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[17]  V. Bruce,et al.  Local and Relational Aspects of Face Distinctiveness , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[18]  B. Rossion Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[19]  C. Liu,et al.  Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative , 1999, Vision Research.

[20]  M. Farah,et al.  What is "special" about face perception? , 1998, Psychological review.

[21]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

[22]  G. Hole,et al.  Evidence for Holistic Processing of Faces Viewed as Photographic Negatives , 1999, Perception.

[23]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Understanding the multiframe caricature advantage for recognizing facial composites , 2012 .

[24]  Roberto Cabeza,et al.  Features are Also Important: Contributions of Featural and Configural Processing to Face Recognition , 2000, Psychological science.

[25]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Automating the Processes Involved in Facial Composite Production and Identification , 2009, 2009 Symposium on Bio-inspired Learning and Intelligent Systems for Security.

[26]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[27]  V Bruce,et al.  The Use of Pigmentation and Shading Information in Recognising the Sex and Identities of Faces , 1994, Perception.

[28]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[29]  Jonathan W. Schooler,et al.  Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. , 2002 .

[30]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[31]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems , 2005 .

[32]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Effect of disorientation on visual analysis, familiarity decision and semantic decision on faces. , 1993, British journal of psychology.

[33]  V. Bruce,et al.  The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition , 1987 .

[34]  A. Young,et al.  Configurational Information in Face Perception , 1987, Perception.

[35]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology When Inverted Faces Are Recognized: the Role of Configural Information in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[36]  G. Hole,et al.  Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance , 2002, Perception.

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

[38]  Peter J B Hancock,et al.  Familiarity effects in the construction of facial-composite images using modern software systems , 2011, Ergonomics.

[39]  R. Galper,et al.  Recognition of faces in photographic negative , 1970 .

[40]  Evolving facial composite systems , 2009 .

[41]  Forensic Psychology and Law , 2009 .

[42]  F. Mast,et al.  The face‐inversion effect can be explained by the capacity limitations of an orientation normalization mechanism , 2005 .

[43]  A. Johnston,et al.  Recognising Faces: Effects of Lighting Direction, Inversion, and Brightness Reversal , 2013, Perception.

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

[45]  H. Leder,et al.  When Feature Information Comes First! Early Processing of Inverted Faces , 2005, Perception.

[46]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. , 2007, British journal of psychology.

[48]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of pixelation and blurring on masking the identity of familiar faces , 2001 .

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

[50]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Use of facial composite systems in US law enforcement agencies , 2006 .

[51]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites , 2004, TAP.

[52]  V. Bruce,et al.  Mental rotation of faces , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[53]  J. Sergent An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. , 1984, British journal of psychology.

[54]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  The Lady'S Not for Turning: Rotation of the Thatcher Illusion , 2001, Perception.

[55]  T. Poggio,et al.  I think I know that face... , 1996, Nature.

[56]  E. Gigliotti Discovering Statistics Using spss. Second Edition , 2007 .

[57]  R. Phillips Why are faces hard to recognize in photographic negative? , 1972 .

[58]  David Nunez,et al.  An evaluation of ID: an eigenface based construction system , 2006, South Afr. Comput. J..

[59]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images , 1991 .

[60]  V. Bruce,et al.  Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[61]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Hair today, gone tomorrow: holistic processing of facial-composite images , 2012 .

[62]  G. Hole Identity-specific face adaptation effects: Evidence for abstractive face representations , 2011, Cognition.

[63]  P. Hancock,et al.  Whole-face procedures for recovering facial images from memory. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[64]  G Davies,et al.  Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[65]  [Effects of configural information on face shape perception]. , 2005, Shinrigaku kenkyu : The Japanese journal of psychology.

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

[67]  S. Gibson,et al.  Nonlinear, near photo-realistic caricatures using a parametric facial appearance model , 2005, Behavior research methods.

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

[69]  P. Hancock,et al.  Recovering faces from memory: the distracting influence of external facial features. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[70]  S. Ullman,et al.  Generalization to Novel Images in Upright and Inverted Faces , 1993, Perception.

[71]  V. Bruce,et al.  Parallel approaches to composite production: interfaces that behave contrary to expectation , 2007, Ergonomics.

[72]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[73]  Four heads are better than one , 2013 .

[74]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Oxford Handbook of Face Perception , 2011 .

[75]  R. Watt,et al.  Biological "bar codes" in human faces. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[76]  Andrew J. Edmonds,et al.  Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review , 2009, Memory.

[77]  Michael B. Lewis Eye-Witnesses Should Not Do Cryptic Crosswords Prior to Identity Parades , 2006, Perception.

[78]  I. Craw,et al.  Effects of high-pass and low-pass spatial filtering on face identification , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[79]  P. Hancock,et al.  An evaluation of US systems for facial composite production , 2007, Ergonomics.

[80]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Contemporary composite techniques: The impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. , 2005 .

[81]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[82]  G. Hole,et al.  Featural and Configurational Processes in the Recognition of Faces of Different Familiarity , 2000, Perception.

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

[84]  George A. F. Seber,et al.  Linear regression analysis , 1977 .

[85]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles , 2005, Vision Research.

[86]  R Kemp,et al.  Perception and Recognition of Normal and Negative Faces: The Role of Shape from Shading and Pigmentation Cues , 1996, Perception.

[87]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Early electrophysiological responses to multiple face orientations correlate with individual discrimination performance in humans , 2007, NeuroImage.

[88]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Features, Configuration, and Holistic Face Processing , 2011 .

[89]  M. White,et al.  Effect of Photographic Negation on Matching the Expressions and Identities of Faces , 2001, Perception.

[90]  P. Sinha,et al.  Contribution of Color to Face Recognition , 2002, Perception.

[91]  D. Perrett,et al.  Manipulation of Colour and Shape Information and its Consequence upon Recognition and Best-Likeness Judgments , 2000, Perception.

[92]  G. Hole,et al.  The role of spatial and surface cues in the age-processing of unfamiliar faces , 2000 .

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

[94]  M. Bindemann,et al.  Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[95]  P. Hancock,et al.  Interviewing Techniques for Darwinian Facial-Composite Systems , 2012 .

[96]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Evolving and combining facial composites: between-witness and within-witness morphs compared. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[98]  V. Bruce,et al.  The importance of ‘mass’ in line drawings of faces , 1992 .

[99]  H. Ellis,et al.  Identification of Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces from Internal and External Features: Some Implications for Theories of Face Recognition , 1979, Perception.

[100]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[101]  V. Bruce,et al.  The psychology of face construction: Giving evolution a helping hand. , 2011 .