Reassessing the 3/4 view effect in face recognition

It is generally accepted that unfamiliar faces are better recognized if presented in 3/4 view. A common interpretation of this result is that the 3/4 view represents a canonical view for faces. This article presents a critical review of this claim. Two kinds of advantage, in which a 3/4 view either generalizes better to a different view or produces better recognition in the same view, are discussed. Our analysis of the literature shows that the first effect almost invariably depended on different amounts of angular rotation that was present between learning and test views. The advantage usually vanished when angular rotation was equalized between conditions. Reports in favor of the second effect are scant and can be countered by studies reporting negative findings. To clarify this ambiguity, we conducted a recognition experiment. Subjects were trained and tested on the same three views (full-face, 3/4 and profile). The results showed no difference between the three view conditions. Our analysis of the literature, along with the new results, shows that the evidence for a 3/4 view advantage in both categories is weak at best. We suggest that a better predictor of performance for recognition in different views is the angular difference between learning and test views. For recognition in the same view, there may be a wide range of views whose effectiveness is comparable to the 3/4 view.

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

[2]  M. Harries,et al.  Preferential Inspection of Views of 3-D Model Heads , 1991, Perception.

[3]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993 .

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

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

[6]  Helmut Leder,et al.  Matching Person Identity from Facial Line Drawings , 1999 .

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

[8]  K. Laughery,et al.  Recognition of human faces: effects of target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph. , 1971, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Face recognition, pose and ecological validity. , 1987 .

[10]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Viewpoint dependence and face recognition , 1994, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

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

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

[13]  M. Bornstein,et al.  Psychological development from infancy: Image to intention , 1979 .

[14]  T. Poggio,et al.  The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition , 1994, Current Biology.

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

[16]  David C. Knill,et al.  Object classification for human and ideal observers , 1995, Vision Research.

[17]  Frances L. Krouse.  Effects of pose, pose change, and delay on face recognition performance. , 1981 .

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

[19]  H. Abdi,et al.  What Represents a Face? A Computational Approach for the Integration of Physiological and Psychological Data , 1997, Perception.

[20]  D. Perkins.  A Definition of Caricature and Caricature and Recognition , 1975 .

[21]  T. Valentine,et al.  Recognizing Unfamiliar Faces: The Effects of Distinctiveness and View , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[22]  Avi Chaudhuri,et al.  Are There Qualitative Differences between Face Processing in Photographic Positive and Negative? , 1998, Perception.

[23]  Lionel Haward,et al.  Evaluating witness evidence: S. Llyod-Bostock and R. Clifford (Eds): Wiley, Chichester, England (1983). x + 305 pages. £19.95. , 1984 .

[24]  Stephane J. M. Rainville,et al.  The effects of spatial frequency overlap on face recognition. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[27]  M J Tarr,et al.  What Object Attributes Determine Canonical Views? , 1999, Perception.

[28]  K Verfaillie,et al.  A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.