How Different is Different? Criterion and Sensitivity in Face-Space

Not all detectable differences between face images correspond to a change in identity. Here we measure both sensitivity to change and the criterion difference that is perceived as a change in identity. Both measures are used to test between possible similarity metrics. Using a same/different task and the method of constant stimuli criterion is specified as the 50% “different” point (P50) and sensitivity as the difference limen (DL). Stimuli and differences are defined within a “face-space” based on principal components analysis of measured differences in three-dimensional shape. In Experiment 1 we varied views available. Criterion (P50) was lowest for identical full-face view comparisons that can be based on image differences. When comparing across views P50, was the same for a static 45° change as for multiple animated views, although sensitivity (DL) was higher for the animated case, where it was as high as for identical views. Experiments 2 and 3 tested possible similarity metrics. Experiment 2 contrasted Euclidean and Mahalanobis distance by setting PC1 or PC2 to zero. DL did not differ between conditions consistent with Mahalanobis. P50 was lower when PC2 changed emphasizing that perceived changes in identity are not determined by the magnitude of Euclidean physical differences. Experiment 3 contrasted a distance with an angle based similarity measure. We varied the distinctiveness of the faces being compared by varying distance from the origin, a manipulation that affects distances but not angles between faces. Angular P50 and DL were both constant for faces from 1 to 2 SD from the mean, consistent with an angular measure. We conclude that both criterion and sensitivity need to be considered and that an angular similarity metric based on standardized PC values provides the best metric for specifying what physical differences will be perceived to change in identity.

[1]  Nikolaus F. Troje,et al.  How is bilateral symmetry of human faces used for recognition of novel views? , 1998, Vision Research.

[2]  Otto H MacLin,et al.  Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[3]  John R. Vokey,et al.  The Face-Space Typicality Paradox: Understanding the Face-Space Metaphor , 1998 .

[4]  A.J O'Toole,et al.  3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: the role of "averages" in attractiveness and age , 1999, Image Vis. Comput..

[5]  R. A. Johnston,et al.  Do Distinctive Faces Come from Outer Space? An Investigation of the Status of a Multidimensional Face-Space , 1997 .

[6]  Ryan T Maloney,et al.  Things are Looking up: Differential Decline in Face Recognition following Pitch and Yaw Rotation , 2007, Perception.

[7]  I. Biederman,et al.  The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces , 2007, Vision Research.

[8]  J. Brigham,et al.  Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review , 2001 .

[9]  Thomas Vetter,et al.  A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces , 1999, SIGGRAPH.

[10]  Paul Suetens,et al.  Craniofacial reconstruction using a combined statistical model of face shape and soft tissue depths: methodology and validation. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[11]  J. Townsend,et al.  Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition : Contexts and Challenges , 2005 .

[12]  S. Klein,et al.  Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Stimulus-specific effects in face recognition over changes in viewpoint , 1998, Vision Research.

[14]  V. Bruce,et al.  What's Distinctive about a Distinctive Face? , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  Michael D Lee,et al.  Attention to internal face features in unfamiliar face matching. , 2008, British journal of psychology.

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

[17]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Face–space models of face recognition. , 2001 .

[18]  S Miyasaka,et al.  Computer-assisted facial image identification system using a 3-D physiognomic range finder. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[19]  Gunter Loffler,et al.  Synthetic faces, face cubes, and the geometry of face space , 2002, Vision Research.

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

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

[22]  Matthew Turk,et al.  A Morphable Model For The Synthesis Of 3D Faces , 1999, SIGGRAPH.

[23]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Dirk Vandermeulen,et al.  Targeting specific facial variation for different identification tasks. , 2010, Forensic science international.

[26]  T. Valentine The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology a Unified Account of the Effects of Distinctiveness, Inversion, and Race in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[27]  Jules Davidoff,et al.  Face Familiarity, Distinctiveness, and Categorical Perception , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[29]  Steve D. Charman,et al.  Eyewitness Lineups: Is the Appearance-Change Instruction a Good Idea? , 2007, Law and human behavior.

[30]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Prototype-referenced shape perception : Adaptation and after-effects in a multidimensional face space , 2010 .

[31]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Adaptive face coding and discrimination around the average face , 2007, Vision Research.

[32]  Saiful Islam,et al.  Mahalanobis Distance , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

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

[34]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Low-dimensional representation of faces in higher dimensions of the face space , 1993 .

[35]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  Coding spatial variations in faces and simple shapes: a test of two models , 1998, Vision Research.

[36]  I. Mclaren,et al.  Tests of the Ratio Rule in Categorization , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[37]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[38]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Face‐space‐R: Towards a unified account of face recognition , 2004 .

[39]  Tim Valentine,et al.  CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock , 2009 .

[40]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Face Recognition : Explorations in Face Space , 1995 .

[41]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

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

[43]  V. Bruce,et al.  The Effects of Distinctiveness in Recognising and Classifying Faces , 1986, Perception.

[44]  P. Schyns,et al.  Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition , 1997, Cognition.

[45]  Avi Chaudhuri,et al.  Reassessing the 3/4 view effect in face recognition , 2002, Cognition.

[46]  Robert A. Johnston,et al.  A Unified Account of the Effects of Caricaturing Faces , 1999 .

[47]  V. Bruce,et al.  Human and automatic face recognition: a comparison across image formats , 2001, Vision Research.

[48]  M. Franzblau,et al.  Conflict of Interest Statement , 2004 .

[49]  Jeff Miller,et al.  On the analysis of psychometric functions: The Spearman-Kärber method , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[52]  Peter J. B. Hancock,et al.  Changing faces: Direction is important , 2010 .

[53]  A. M. Burton,et al.  Sex Discrimination: How Do We Tell the Difference between Male and Female Faces? , 1993, Perception.

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

[55]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Three-Dimensional Caricatures of Human Heads: Distinctiveness and the Perception of Facial Age , 1997, Perception.

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

[57]  Christian A. Meissner,et al.  Social and Cognitive Factors Affecting the Own-Race Bias in Whites , 2000 .

[58]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Categorical perception of face identity in noise isolates configural processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  V Bruce,et al.  Perceiving the sex and race of faces: the role of shape and colour , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[60]  P. Mahalanobis On the generalized distance in statistics , 1936 .

[61]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Quantitative Models of Perceiving and Remembering Faces: Precedents and Possibilities , 1998 .

[62]  Sami Romdhani,et al.  Morphable Models of Faces , 2011, Handbook of Face Recognition.

[63]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[64]  D. Maurer,et al.  Configural Face Processing Develops more Slowly than Featural Face Processing , 2002, Perception.

[65]  V. Bruce,et al.  A comparison of two computer-based face identification systems with human perceptions of faces , 1998, Vision Research.

[66]  R M Nosofsky,et al.  Similarity-scaling studies of dot-pattern classification and recognition. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[67]  S. Dakin,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for a non-linear representation of facial identity , 2009, Vision Research.