Evaluating the Feature Comparison Strategy for Forensic Face Identification

Face recognition is thought to rely on representations that encode holistic properties. Paradoxically, professional forensic examiners who identify unfamiliar faces by comparing facial images are trained to adopt a feature-by-feature comparison strategy. Here we tested the effectiveness of this strategy by asking participants to rate facial feature similarity prior to making same/different identity decisions to pairs of face images. Experiment 1 provided preliminary evidence that rating feature similarity improves unfamiliar face matching accuracy in novice participants. In Experiment 2, we found benefits of this procedure over and above rating similarity of personality traits and image quality parameters, suggesting that benefits are not solely attributable to general increases in attention. In Experiment 3, we then compared performance of trained forensic facial image examiners to novice participants, and found that examiners displayed: i) superior face matching accuracy; ii) smaller face inversion and feature inversion effects; and iii) feature ratings that were more diagnostic of identity. Further, aggregating feature ratings of multiple examiners produced perfect identity discrimination. Based on these quantitative and qualitative differences between experts and novices, we conclude that comparison based on local features confers specific benefits to trained forensic examiners.

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

[2]  Vaidehi S. Natu,et al.  Unaware Person Recognition From the Body When Face Identification Fails , 2013, Psychological science.

[3]  H. Pashler,et al.  Measuring the Crowd Within , 2008, Psychological science.

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

[5]  A. Burton,et al.  Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform individuals and provide a route to training. , 2015, British journal of psychology.

[6]  Alberta Ipser,et al.  Exemplar Variance Supports Robust Learning of Facial Identity , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[8]  J. Keenan,et al.  Discrimination of spatial relations and features in faces: Effects of inversion and viewing duration. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[9]  T. Valentine Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[10]  Allison B Sekuler,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Not Correlated With Face-Identification Accuracy , 2010, Psychological science.

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

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

[13]  Charity Brown,et al.  Verbal facilitation of face recognition , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[14]  M. Bindemann,et al.  Exploring the time course of face matching: Temporal constraints impair unfamiliar face identification under temporally unconstrained viewing , 2011, Vision Research.

[15]  G. Yovel,et al.  Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Toward a new theory of holistic processing , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[16]  A. Todorov,et al.  Misleading First Impressions , 2014, Psychological science.

[17]  G Tiberghien,et al.  Encoding activity and face recognition. , 1997, Memory.

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

[19]  A. Baddeley,et al.  When face recognition fails. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[20]  David White,et al.  Feedback training for facial image comparison , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[22]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[23]  Matthew Q. Hill,et al.  Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  S. Carey Becoming a face expert. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[25]  V. Bruce,et al.  Face Recognition in Poor-Quality Video: Evidence From Security Surveillance , 1999 .

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

[27]  P. Schyns,et al.  Show Me the Features! Understanding Recognition From the Use of Visual Information , 2002, Psychological science.

[28]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Registered Replication Report , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[29]  Meike Ramon Differential Processing of Vertical Interfeature Relations Due to Real-Life Experience with Personally Familiar Faces , 2015, Perception.

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

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

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

[33]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  Comparing face recognition algorithms to humans on challenging tasks , 2012, TAP.

[34]  Sarah Bate,et al.  An in-depth cognitive examination of individuals with superior face recognition skills , 2016, Cortex.

[35]  David White,et al.  Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software , 2015, PloS one.

[36]  David White,et al.  Evaluating Training Methods for Facial Image Comparison: The Face Shape Strategy Does Not Work , 2014, Perception.

[37]  A. Burton,et al.  Crowd Effects in Unfamiliar Face Matching , 2013 .

[38]  S. Carey,et al.  From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. , 1977, Science.

[39]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Face Challenge Problem , 2012, Image and Vision Computing.

[40]  Frédéric Gosselin,et al.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of face recognition in a flash: it's in the eyes , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

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

[42]  Fred W Mast,et al.  Perception of Novel Faces: The Parts Have it! , 2007, Perception.

[43]  James W Tanaka,et al.  The “Parts and Wholes” of Face Recognition: A Review of the Literature , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[44]  Cheryl L. Grady,et al.  AGE-RELATED CHANGES IN THE NEURAL CORRELATES OF DEGRADED AND NONDEGRADED FACE PROCESSING , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[45]  Klas Brorsson Läthén,et al.  The Effect of Image Quality and Forensic Expertise in Facial Image Comparisons , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[47]  Andrew W Young,et al.  Learning faces from photographs. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[49]  Rob Jenkins,et al.  Face Recognition by Metropolitan Police Super-Recognisers , 2016, PloS one.

[50]  H. P. Bahrick,et al.  Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. , 1975 .

[51]  I Biederman,et al.  Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[52]  Garrett L. Berman,et al.  The influence of processing instructions at encoding and retrieval on face recognition accuracy , 1998 .

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

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

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

[56]  C. Wilkinson,et al.  Are facial image analysis experts any better than the general public at identifying individuals from CCTV images? , 2009, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[57]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Face Matching and Retrieval in Forensics Applications , 2012, IEEE MultiMedia.

[58]  P. Bennett,et al.  Effects of aging on face identification and holistic face processing , 2013, Vision Research.

[59]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Linkages between Biometrics and Forensic Science , 2008 .

[60]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  Patrick Grother,et al.  Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) , 2014 .

[62]  Patrick J. Grother,et al.  Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Performance of Face Identification Algorithms NIST IR 8009 , 2014 .

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

[64]  Arun Ross,et al.  A survey on ear biometrics , 2013, CSUR.

[65]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[66]  A. Burton,et al.  Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching , 2014, PloS one.