Configural and featural information in facial-composite images

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 215-227

  Frowd, Charlie D ^a   Jones, Sharrome ^b   Fodarella, Cristina ^c   Skelton, Faye ^c   Fields, Steve ^d   Williams, Anna ^e   Marsh, John E ^c   Thorley, Rachel ^c   Nelson, Laura ^c   Greenwood, Leah ^c   Date, Louisa ^c   Kearley, Kevin ^f   McIntyre, Alex H ^g   Hancock, Peter J B ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b HMP Glenochil   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^d HMP Edinburgh   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^f Lancashire Constabulary ^*  (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Configural; Crime; Criminal suspects; Facial composite; Feature; Identification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; FEMALE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; KERNEL METHOD; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTOGRAPHY; YOUNG ADULT;

CONFIGURAL; CRIME; CRIMINAL SUSPECTS; FACIAL COMPOSITE; FEATURE; IDENTIFICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTOGRAPHY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899946824     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Benson P.J., Perrett D.I. Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: implications for the recognition of natural images. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 1991, 3:105-135.
2. Bindemann M., Burton A.M., Leuthold H., Schweinberger S.R. Brain potential correlates of face recognition: geometric distortions and the N250r brain response to stimulus repetitions. Psychophysiology 2008, 45:535-544.
3. Brace N., Pike G., Kemp R. Investigating E-FIT using famous faces. Forensic Psychology and Law 2000, 272-276. Institute of Forensic Research Publishers, Krakow. A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, J. Wojcikiewicz (Eds.).
4. Bruce V. Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. Br. J. Psychol. 1982, 73:105-116.
5. Bruce V., Burton A.M., Craw I.G.C. Modelling face recognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1992, 335:121-128.
6. Bruce V., Hanna E., Dench N., Healey P., Burton M. The importance of "mass" in line-drawings of faces. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1992, 6:619-628.
7. Bruce V., Langton S. The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognizing the sex and identities of faces. Perception 1994, 23:803-822.
8. Bruce V., Ness H., Hancock P.J.B., Newman C., Rarity J. Four heads are better than one. Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87:894-902.
9. Bruce V., Valentine T., Baddeley A.D. The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1987, 1:109-120.
10. Bruyer R., Galvez C., Prairial C. Effect of disorientation on visual analysis, familiarity decision and semantic decision on faces. Br. J. Psychol. 1993, 84:433-441.
11. Burton A.M., Jenkins R., Hancock P.J.B., White D. Robust representations for face recognition: the power of averages. Cogn. Psychol. 2005, 51:256-284.
12. Cabeza R., Kato T. Features are also important: contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 11:429-433.
13. Carbon C., Leder H. When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception 2005, 34:1117-1134.
14. Collishaw S.M., Hole G.J. Is there a linear or a nonlinear relationship between rotation and configural processing of faces?. Perception 2002, 31:287-296.
15. Costen N.P., Parker D.M., Craw I. Effects of high-pass and low-pass spatial filtering on face identification. Percept. Psychophys. 1996, 58:602-612.
16. Dakin S.C., Watt R.J. Biological "bar codes" in human faces. J. Vis. 2009, 9:1-10.
17. Davies G.M., Christie D. Face recall: an examination of some factors limiting composite production accuracy. J. Appl. Psychol. 1982, 67:103-109.
18. Davies G.M., Ellis H.D., Shepherd J.W. Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 92:507-523.
19. Davies G.M., van der Willik P., Morrison L.J. Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85:119-124.
20. Diamond R., Cary S. Why faces, are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1986, 11:107-117.
21. Ellis H.D., Shepherd J.W., Davies G.M. Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception 1979, 8:431-439.
22. Ellis H.D., Shepherd J.W., Davies G.M. The deterioration of verbal descriptions of faces over different delay intervals. J. Police Sci. Adm. 1980, 8:101-106.
23. Farah M.J., Wilson K.D., Drain H.M., Tanaka J.R. What is "special" about face perception?. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 105:482-498.
24. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.G., Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39:175-191.
25. Freire A., Lee K., Symons L.A. The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: direct evidence. Perception 2000, 29:159-170.
26. Frowd C.D., Bruce V., Hancock P.J.B. Evolving facial composite systems. Forensic Update 2009, 98:25-32.
27. Frowd C.D., Bruce V., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. Br. J. Psychol. 2007, 98:61-77.
28. Frowd C.D., Bruce V., Ness H., Bowie L., Thomson-Bogner C., Paterson J., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. Parallel approaches to composite production. Ergonomics 2007, 50:562-585.
29. Frowd C.D., Bruce V., Smith A., Hancock P.J.B. Improving the quality of facial composites using a holistic cognitive interview. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2008, 14:276-287.
30. Frowd C.D., Hancock P.J.B., Carson D. EvoFIT: a holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites. ACM Trans. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 1:1-21.
31. Frowd C.D., Herold K., McDougall M., Duckworth L., Hassan A., Riley A., Butt A., McCrae D., Wilkinson C., Skelton F.C., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. Hair today, gone tomorrow: holistic processing of facial-composite images 2012, (Manuscript under revision).
32. Frowd C.D., McQuiston-Surrett D., Anandaciva S., Ireland C.E., Hancock P.J.B. An evaluation of US systems for facial composite production. Ergonomics 2007, 50:1987-1998.
33. Frowd C.D., Nelson L., Skelton F.C., Noyce R., Atkins R., Heard P., Morgan D., Fields S., Henry J., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. Interviewing techniques for Darwinian facial composite systems. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2012, 10.1002/acp.2829.
34. Frowd C.D., Pitchford M., Bruce V., Jackson S., Hepton G., Greenall M., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. The psychology of face construction: giving evolution a helping hand. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2010, 25:195-203.
35. Frowd C.D., Skelton F., Atherton C., Pitchford M., Hepton G., Holden L., McIntyre A., Hancock P.J.B. Recovering faces from memory: the distracting influence of external facial features. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2012, 18:224-238.
36. Frowd C.D., Skelton F.C., Atherton C., Pitchford M., Bruce V., Atkins R., Gannon C., Ross D., Young F., Nelson L., Hepton G., McIntyre A.H., Hancock P.J.B. Understanding the multi-frame caricature advantage for recognising facial composites. Vis. Cogn. 2012, 20:1215-1241.
37. Frowd C.D., Skelton F., Butt N., Hassan A., Fields S. Familiarity effects in the construction of facial-composite images using modern software systems. Ergonomics 2011, 54:1147-1158.
38. Frowd C.D., Skelton F., Hepton G., Holden L., Minahil S., Pitchford M., McIntyre A., Brown C., Hancock P.J.B. Whole-face procedures for recovering facial images from memory. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:89-97.
39. Galper R.E. Recognition of faces in photographic negative. Psychon. Sci. 1970, 19:207-208.
40. Gibson S.J., Solomon C.J., Pallares-Bejarano A. Nonlinear, near photo-realistic caricatures using a parametric facial appearance model. Behav. Res. Methods 2005, 37:170-181.
41. Goffaux V., Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2007, 33:995-1002.
42. Hancock P.J.B., Bruce V., Burton A.M. Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4-9:330-337.
43. Hill H., Bruce V. Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1996, 22:986-1004.
44. Hole G.J. Identity-specific face adaptation effects: evidence for abstractive face representations. Cognition 2011, 119:216-228.
45. Hole G.J., George P.A., Dunsmore V. Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception 1999, 28:341-359.
46. Hole G.J., George P.A., Eaves K., Rasek A. Effects of geometric distortions on face-recognition performance. Perception 2002, 31:1221-1240.
47. Jacques C., Rossion B. Early electrophysiological responses to multiple face orientations correlate with individual discrimination performance in humans. NeuroImage 2007, 36:863-876.
48. Johnston R.A., Edmonds A.J. Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: a review. Memory 2009, 17:577-596.
49. Johnston A., Hill H., Carman N. Recognising faces: effects of lighting direction, inversion, and brightness reversal. Perception 1992, 21:365-375.
50. Kemp R., McManus C., Pigott T. Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images. Perception 1990, 19:531-543.
51. Kemp R., Pike G., White P., Musselman A. Perception and recognition of normal and negative faces: the role of shape from shading and pigmentation cues. Perception 1996, 25:37-52.
52. Lander K., Bruce V., Hill H. Evaluating the effectiveness of pixelation and blurring on masking the identity of familiar faces. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2001, 15:101-116.
53. Leder H., Bruce V. Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1998, 51A:449-473.
54. Leder H., Bruce V. When inverted faces are recognized: the role of configural information in face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 2000, 53:513-536.
55. Lee K.J., Perrett D.I. Manipulation of colour and shape information and its consequence upon recognition and best-likeness judgments. Perception 2000, 29:1291-1312.
56. Lewis M.B. Eye-witnesses should not do cryptic crosswords prior to identity parades. Perception 2006, 35:1433-1436.
57. Lewis M.B. The lady's not for turning: rotation of the Thatcher illusion. Perception 2001, 30:769-774.
58. Liu C.H., Collin C.A., Burton A.M., Chaurdhuri A. Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative. Vis. Res. 1999, 39:4003-4009.
59. McQuiston-Surrett D., Topp L.D., Malpass R.S. Use of facial composite systems in U.S. law enforcement agencies. Psychol. Crime Law 2006, 12:505-517.
60. Megreya A.M., Burton A.M. Unfamiliar faces are not faces-evidence from a matching task. Mem. Cogn. 2006, 34:865-876.
61. Moses Y., Ullman S., Edelman S. Generalization to novel images in upright and inverted faces. Perception 1996, 25:443-462.
62. Patterson K.E., Baddedley A.D. When recognition fails. J. Appl. Psychol. 1977, 3:406-417.
63. Phillips R.J. Why are faces hard to recognize in photographic negative?. Percept. Psychophys. 1972, 12:425-426.
64. Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychol. 2008, 128:274-289.
65. Rossion B., Boremanse A. Nonlinear relationship between holistic processing of individual faces and picture-plane rotation: evidence from the face composite illusion. J. Vis. 2008, 8:1-13.
66. Russell R., Sinha P., Biederman I., Nederhouser M. Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception 2006, 35:749-759.
67. Schwaninger A., Lobmaier J.S., Collishaw S.M. Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2002, 2525:643-650.
68. Schooler J.W. Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2002, 16:989-997.
69. Schwaninger A., Mast F.W. The face-inversion effect can be explained by the capacity limitations of an orientation normalization mechanism. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2005, 47:216-222.
70. Searcy J.H., Bartlett J.C. Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1996, 22:904-915.
71. Sergent J. An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. Br. J. Psychol. 1984, 75:221-243.
72. Sinha P., Poggio T. I think I know that face. Nature 1996, 384:404.
73. Tanaka J.W., Farah M.J. Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol. 1993, 46A:225-245.
74. Tanaka J.W., Gordon I. Features, configuration, and holistic face processing. The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception 2011, 177-194. Oxford University Press, New York. A.J. Calder (Ed.).
75. Tanaka J.W., Sengco J.A. Features and their configuration in face recognition. Mem. Cogn. 1997, 25:583-592.
76. Tredoux C.G., Nunez D.T., Oxtoby O., Prag B. An evaluation of ID: an eigenface based construction system. S. Afr. Comput. J. 2006, 37:1-9.
77. Valentine T., Bruce V. Mental rotation of faces. Mem. Cogn. 1988, 16:556-566.
78. Valentine T., Davis J.P., Thorner K., Solomon C., Gibson S. Evolving and combining facial composites: between-witness and within-witness morphs compared. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2010, 16:72-86.
79. Vuong Q.C., Peissig J.J., Harrison M.C., Tarr M.J. The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles. Vis. Res. 2005, 45:1213-1223.
80. Wells G.L., Hryciw B. Memory for faces: encoding and retrieval operations. Mem. Cogn. 1984, 12:338-344.
81. White M. Effect of photographic negation on matching the expressions and identities of faces. Perception 2001, 30:969-981.
82. Wogalter M., Marwitz D. Face composite construction: in view and from memory quality improvement with practice. Ergonomics 1991, 22:333-343.
83. Yasuda T. Effects of configural information on face shape perception. Jpn. J. Psychol. 2005, 76:131-138.
84. Yip A.W., Sinha P. Contribution of color to face recognition. Perception 2002, 31:995-1003.
85. Young A.W., Hellawell D., Hay D.C. Configurational information in face perception. Perception 1987, 16:747-759.
86. Yin R.K. Looking at upside down faces. J. Exp. Psychol. 1969, 81:141-145.
87. Frowd C.D., Carson D., Ness H., Richardson J., Morrison L., McLanaghan S., Hancock P.J.B. A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychol. Crime Law 2005, 11:33-52.
88. Frowd C.D., Carson D., Ness H., McQuiston D., Richardson J., Baldwin H., Hancock P.J.B. Contemporary Composite Techniques: the impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 2005, 10:63-81.
89. Koehn C.E., Fisher R.P. Constructing facial composites with the Mac-a-Mug Pro system. Psychol. Crime Law 1997, 3:215-224.