Suspect identification by facial features

Ergonomics

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 719-747

  Lee, Eric ^a   Whalen, Thomas ^b   Sakalauskas, John ^a   Baigent, Glen ^c   Bisesar, Chandra ^a   McCarthy, Andrew ^a   Reid, Glenda ^a   Wotton, Cynthia ^a  

^a SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Industry Canada   (Canada)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Face identification; Feature retrieval systems; Image retrieval; Mug shots; Suspect identification

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; FACE RECOGNITION; IDENTIFICATION (CONTROL SYSTEMS); PHOTOINTERPRETATION; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION; MUG SHOTS;

ERGONOMICS;

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERT WITNESS; FACIES; FEMALE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OFFENDER; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CRIMINAL LAW; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTOGRAPHY; PSYCHOMETRICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 3142769925     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140130310001629720     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson, J. R. 1985, Cognitive Psychology, 2nd edn. (New York: Freeman).
2. Bruce, V. and Valentine, T. 1988, When a nod's as good as a wink: The role of dynamic information in facial recognition. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris and R. N. Sykes (eds), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, vol. 1, (Chichester: Wiley), 169-174.
3. Bruce, V. 1994, Stability from variation: The case for face recognition, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 5-28.
4. 2 tests, Biometrics, 10, 417-451.
5. Davies, G. M. 1979, Face recognition: Issues and theories. In M. M. Gurneberg, P. E. Morris and R. N. Sykes (eds), Practical Aspects of Memory (London: Academic Press).
6. 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, 1, 299-305.
7. Egan, D., Pittner, M. and Goldstein, A. G. 1977, Eyewitness identification: Photographs vs. live models, Law and Human Behaviour, 1, 199-206.
8. Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., Shepherd, J., Kim, R. H. and Davies, G. M. 1989, Identification from a computer-driven retrieval system compared with a traditional mugshot 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. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 (London: Elsevier).
14. Lee, E. S., Densmore, H. and Whalen, T. E. 1993, Suspect identification by features, Contemporary Ergonomics 1993 (The Ergonomics Society 1993 Annual Conference), (London: Taylor and Francis), 58-63.
15. Lee, E. S. and Whalen, T. E. 1993a, Computer image retrieval by features: Suspect identification, Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems INTERCHI'93, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (New York: ACM), 494-499.
16. Lee, E. S. and Whalen, T. E. 1993b, 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, UK.
17. Lee, E. S. and Whalen, T. E. 1995, Computerized feature retrieval of images: Suspect identification', Ergonomics, 38, 1941-1957.
18. Lee, E. S. and Whalen, T. E. 1996, Feature approaches to suspect identification: The effect of multiple raters on system performance, Ergonomics, 39, 17-34.
19. Lee, E. S., Whalen, T. E., Jollymore, G., Read, C. and Swaffer, M. 1998, The effects of delay on the performance of computerized feature systems for identifying suspects, Behaviour and Information Technology, 12(5), 294-300.
20. 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).
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Noseworthy, G. J., Martin, R. and Martynuck, C. 1994, Using mug shots to find suspects, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 121-130.
22. Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H. D. and Davies, G. M. 1982, Identification Evidence: A Psychological Perspective, (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press).
23. Wells, G. L. 1988, Eyewitness Identification: A System Handbook. (Toronto: Carswell).
24. Wells, G. L. 1993, What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
25. Whalen, T. E., Lee, E. S. and Baigent, G. 1994, A computerized feature approach to suspect identification: Empirical tests with live suspects. Proceedings of the 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Ergonomics and the Workplace, Toronto, Canada, 15-19 August 1994, Volume 5, 45-47.