Face recognition, pose and ecological validity.

This paper describes five experiments with two main aims; first, to assess the effects of variations in photographic facial pose on recognizability. A second, more fundamental aim was to examine the reliability of laboratory findings relevant to face recognition, in more ecologically valid settings, and to develop a methodology to further this aim. In Experiment 1 best performance was achieved with provision of three facial poses, namely full-face, three-quarter and profile views. With a single pose a three-quarter view was the most helpful. Experiments 2 and 3 attempted to evaluate these findings in a real-life setting using the general public or paid volunteers who attempted to identify a live target in a town centre from a previously presented photograph. The general public produced a very poor response, and the volunteers produced a low detection and high false recognition rate. Experiment 4 increased constraints on the experimental environment and produced a reasonable hit rate, but no effects of pose. Experiment 5 was a laboratory study where the presentation of a live target preceded photographic recognition. Effects of pose reappeared in line with results of Experiment 1. These results underline the danger involved in making practical recommendations arising from purely laboratory based research.

[1]  A. R. Jonckheere,et al.  A DISTRIBUTION-FREE k-SAMPLE TEST AGAINST ORDERED ALTERNATIVES , 1954 .

[2]  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.

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

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

[5]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  A Critical Examination of the Photofit∗ System For Recalling Faces , 1978 .

[6]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. , 1979, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Effects of interpolated mugshot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification , 1979 .

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

[9]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Guided memory in eyewitness identification. , 1981 .

[10]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. , 1981 .

[11]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Can People Detect Eyewitness-Identification Accuracy Within and Across Situations? , 1981 .

[12]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. , 1981 .

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

[14]  B. Clifford,et al.  Effects of the Type of Incident and the Number of Perpetrators on Eyewitness Memory , 1981 .

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

[16]  J. Brigham,et al.  Accuracy of eyewitness identification in a field setting. , 1982 .

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

[18]  Darryl Bruce,et al.  The how and why of ecological memory. , 1985 .

[19]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.