The effects of delay on the performance of computerized feature systems for identifying suspects

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 294-300

  Lee, Eric ^a   Whalen, Thom ^b   Jollymore, Gloria ^a   Read, Cathy ^a   Swaffer, Marilyn ^a  

^a SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Industry Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; PHOTOGRAPHY;

SUSPECTS IDENTIFICATION;

OBJECT RECOGNITION;

EID: 0032165663     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: 13623001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/014492998119364     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Anderson, J. R. 1985, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 2nd ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman).
2. Chance, J. E., Goldstein, A. G. And McBride, L. 1975, Differential experience and recognition memory for faces, Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 243-253.
3. Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D. And Shepherd, J. W. 1978, Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 180-187.
4. Deffenbacher, K., Carr, T. H. And Leu, J. R. 1981, Memory for words, pictures and faces: Retroactive interference, forgetting and reminiscence, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 299-305.
5. Egan, D., Pittner, M. And Goldstein, A. G. 1977, Eyewitness identification: Photographs vs. live models, Law and Human Behaviour, 1, 199-206.
6. Ellis, H. D. 1984, Practical aspects of facial memory, in G. Wells and E. Loftus (eds), Eyewitness Testimony (New York: Cambridge University Press).
7. Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. And Davies, G. M. 1980, The deterioration of verbal descriptions of faces over different delay intervals, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 101-106.
8. Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., Shepherd, J., Klin, R. H. And Davies, G. M. 1989, Identification from a computer-driven retrieval system compared with a traditional mug-shot album: A new tool for police investigations, Ergonomics, 32, 167-177.
9. Goldstein, A. J., Harmon, L. D. And Lesk, A. 1971, Identification of human faces, Proceedings of the IEEE, 59, 748-760.
10. Harmon, L. D. 1973, The recognition of faces, Scientific American, 229, 70-82.
11. Krouse, F. L. 1981, Effects of pose, pose change, and decay on face recognition performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 651-654.
12. Laughery, K. R., Alexander, J. F. And Lane, A. B. 1971, Recognition of human faces: Effects of target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph, Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 477-483.
13. Laughery, K. R., Fessler, P. K., Lenorovitz, D. R. And Yorlick, D. A. 1974, Time delay and similarity effects in facial recognition, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 490-496.
14. Laughery, K. R., Rhodes, B. T. And Batten, G. W. 1981, Computer-guided recognition and retrieval of facial images, in G. Davies, H. Ellis and J. Shepherd (eds), Perceiving and Remembering Faces (New York: Academic Press).
15. Laughery, K. R. And Wogalter, M. S. 1989, Forensic applications of facial memory research, in A.W. Young and H.D. Ellis (eds), Handbook of Research on Face Processing (North Holland: Elsevier).
16. Lee, E. S., Densmore, H. And Whalen, T. 1993, Suspect identification by features, in E.J. Lovesey (ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1993 (The Ergonomics Society 1993 Annual Conference) (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 58-63.
17. Lee, E. S. And Whalen, T. 1993a, Feature approaches to suspect identification: The effect of multiple raters on system performance, Faces’93 (International Conference on Face Recognition), University of Wales, College of Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
18. Lee, E. S. And Whalen, T. 1993b, Computer image retrieval by features: Suspect identification, Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems INTERCHI '93, Amsterdam (New York: ACM), pp. 494-499.
19. Lee, E. S. And Whalen, T. 1995, Computerized feature retrieval of images: Suspect identification, Ergonomics, 38, 1941-1957.
20. Lee, E. S. And Whalen, T. 1996, Feature approaches to suspect identification: The effect of multiple raters on system performance, Ergonomics, 39, 17-34.
21. Lee, E., Whalen, T., Bisesar, C. And Reid, G. 1995, Suspect identification: Traditional mugshot album versus computerized feature system, in K. Nordby, P. Helmerson, D. Gilmore and S. Arnesen (eds), Human-Computer Interaction: Interact’95 International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) Fifth International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction (Norway: Lillehammer), pp. 231-236.
22. Lenorovitz, D. R. And Laughery, K. R. 1984, A witness-computer interactive system for searching mug files, in G. Wells and E. Loftus (eds), Eyewitness Testimony (New York: Cambridge University Press).
23. Lindsay, R. C. L., Nosworthy, G. J., Martin, R. And Martynuck, C. 1994, Using mug shots to find suspects, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 121-130.
24. Shepherd, J. W. 1983, Identification after long delays, in S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock and B.R. Clifford (eds), Evaluating Witness Evidence (Chichester: Wiley).
25. Shepherd, J. W. And Ellis, H. D. 1973, The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces, American Journal of Psychology, 86, 627-633.
26. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R. And Michels, K. M. 1991, Statistical principles in experimental design (New York: McGraw-Hill).