A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 33-52

  Frowd, Charlie D ^a   Carson, Derek ^b   Ness, Hayley ^a   Richardson, Jan ^c   Morrison, Lisa ^d   Mclanaghan, Sarah ^a   Hancock, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c Evidential Art   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Distinctiveness; Facial Composite; Memory; Witness

Indexed keywords

EID: 12344316985     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160310001634313     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. ACPO(S) (2000). National Working Practices in Facial Imaging. Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) Working Group, unpublished document.
2. Bennett, P. (2000). The use of multiple composites in suspect identification. UK National Conference on Craniofacial Identification, unpublished document. Manchester, May 2000.
3. Brace, N., Pike, G. and Kemp, R. (2000). Investigating E-FIT using famous faces. In A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska and J. Wojeikiewicz (Eds.), Forensic Psychology and Law (pp. 272-276). Krakow: Institute of Forensic Research Publishers.
4. Bruce, V. (1988). Recognising Faces. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healey, P. and Burton, M. (1992). The importance of 'mass' in line-drawings of faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 619-628.
6. Bruce, V., Ness, H., Hancock, P. J. B, Newman, C. and Rarity, J. (2002). Four heads are better than one: combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 894-902.
7. Christie, D. and Ellis, H. (1981). Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 358-363.
8. Christie, D., Davies, G. M., Shepherd, J. W. and Ellis, H. D. (1981). Evaluating a new computer-based system for face recall. Law and Human Behaviour, 2, 209-218.
9. Cutler, B. L., Stocklein, C. J. and Penrod, S. D. (1988). An empirical examination of a computerized facial composite production system. Forensic Reports, 1, 207-218.
10. Davies, G. M. (1983a). Forensic face recall: the role of visual and verbal information. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock and B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating Witness Evidence (pp. 103-123). London: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Davies, G. M. (1983b). The recognition of persons from drawings and photographs. Human Learning, 2, 237-249.
12. Davies, G. M. (1986). Capturing likeness in eyewitness composites: the police artist and his rivals. Medicine, Science and the Law, 26, 283-290.
13. Davies, G. M. and Christie, D. (1982). Face recall: an examination of some factors limiting composite production accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 103-109.
14. Davies, G. M. and Little, M. (1990). Drawing on memory: exploring the expertise of a police artist. Medicine, Science and the Law, 30, 345-354.
15. Davies, G. M. and Oldman, H. (1999). The impact of character attribution on composite production: a real world effect? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 18, 128-139.
16. Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. G. and Shepherd, J. (1978). Face identification: the influence of delay upon accuracy of photofit construction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6, 35-42.
17. Davies, G. M., Milne, A. and Shepherd, J. (1983). Searching for operator skills in face composite reproduction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11, 405-409.
18. Davies, G. M., van der Willik, P. and Morrison, L. J. (2000). Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 119-124.
19. Ellis, H., Shepherd, J. and Davies, G. M. (1975). Use of photo-fit for recalling faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 29-37.
20. Ellis, H., Davies, G. M. and Shepherd, J. (1978a). A critical examination of the photofit system for recalling faces. Ergonomics, 21, 297-307.
21. Ellis, H., Davies, G. M. and Shepherd, J. (1978b). Remembering pictures of real and 'unreal' faces: some practical and theoretical considerations. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 467-474.
22. FBI (1988). FBI Facial Identification Handbook. FBI Graphic Design Unit, Special Projects Section, Laboratory Division.
23. Frowd, C. D., Hancock, P. J. B. and Carson, D. (2000). EvoFIT: a holistic, evolutionary face identification technique. Presentation to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland). Manchester.
24. Gibling, F. and Bennett, P. (1994). Artistic enhancement in the production of photofit likeness: an examination of its effectiveness in leading to suspect identification. Psychology Crime & Law, 1, 93-100.
25. Goffredson, M. R. and Polakowski, M. (1995). Information retrieval: reconstructing faces. In N. Brewer and C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and Policing (pp. 101-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Green, D. L. and Geiselman, R. E. (1989). Building composite facial images: effects of feature saliency and delay of construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 714-721.
27. Hancock, P. J. B. (2000). Evolving faces from principal components. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 327-333.
28. Hancock, P. J. B. and Frowd, C. D. (2002). Evolutionary generation effaces. In P. J. Bentley and D. W. Corne (Eds.), Creative Evolutionary Systems (pp. 409-423). San Diego: Morgan Kaufmann.
29. Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M. and Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: human perception and principal components analysis. Memory and Cognition, 24, 26-40.
30. Identikit (1960). Identikit Handbook Model II. Published 1960, 1975, 1983.Bangor: Punta Operations Inc.
31. Koehn, C. E. and Fisher, R. P. (1997). Constructing facial composites with the Mac-a-Mug Pro system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 215-224.
32. Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Pappas, C. and Thill, D. L. (1997). Identification of computer generated facial composites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 235-246.
33. Laughery, K. and Fowler, R. (1980). Sketch artist and identikit procedures for generating facial images. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 307-316.
34. Leder, H. (1996). Line drawings effaces reduce configurai processing. Perception, 25, 355-366.
35. McQuiston, D. E. and Malpass, R. S. (2000). Use of facial composite systems in U.S. law enforcement agencies. Poster presented at the American Psychology - Law Society, New Orleans, LA
36. Perrett, D., Benson, P. J., Hietanen, J. K., Oram, M. W. and Dittrich, W. H. (1995). When is a face not a face? In R. Gregory. J. Harris, P. Heard and D. Rose (Eds.), The Artful Eye (pp. 95-124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Shapiro, P. N. and Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification rates. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
38. Shepherd, J. and Ellis, H. (1996). Face recall - methods and problems. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass and G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological Issues in Eyewitness Identification (pp. 87-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Sporer, S. L. (1996). Psychological aspects of person descriptions. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass and G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological Issues in Eyewitness Identification (pp. 53-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Tanaka, J. W. and Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225-245.
41. Taylor, K. T. (2001). Forensic Art and Illustration. Boca Raton. FL: CRC Press.
42. Valentine, T. and Bruce, V. (1986). The effects of distinctiveness in recognising and classifying faces. Perception, 15, 525-536.
43. Valentine, T. and Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing: the effects of race and distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 671-703.
44. Vokey, J. R. and Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory and Cognition, 20, 291-302.
45. Wogalter, M. and Marwitz, D. (1991). Face composite construction: in view and from memory quality improvement with practice. Ergonomics, 22, 333-343.