EvoFIT: A Holistic, Evolutionary Facial Imaging Technique for Creating Composites

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 19-39

  Frowd, Charlie D ^a   Hancock, Peter J B ^a   Carson, Derek ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Design; Experimentation; Human factors

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024289873     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1008722.1008725     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Acpo(S). 2000. National Working Practices in Facial Imaging. Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) Working Group.
2. Bennett, P. 2000. The use of multiple composites in suspect identification. In Proceedings of the 3rd UK National Conference on CranioFacial Identification, Manchester, May 2000.
3. Brace, N., Pike, G., and Kemp, R. 2000. Investigating E-FIT using famous faces. In Forensic Psychology and Law, A. Czered-erecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, and J. Wojcikiewicz, Eds. Institute of Forensic Research Publishers, Krakow.
4. Brown, G. D. A., Hulme, C., Hyland, P. D., and Mitchell, I. J. 1994. Cell suicide in the developing nervous systems: a functional neural network model. Cogn. Brain Res. 2, 71-75.
5. Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healey, P., and Burton, M. 1992. The importance of “mass” in line-drawings of faces. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 6, 619-628.
6. Bruce, V., Healey, P., Burton, A. M., Doyle, T., Coombes, A., and Linney, A. 1991. Recognising facial surfaces. Perception 20, 755-769.
7. 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. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 5, 894-902.
8. Brunelli, R. and Poggio, T. 1993. Face recognition: Features versus templates. IEEE Trans. PAMI15, 10, 1042-1052.
9. Caldwell, C. and Johnston, V. S. 1991. Tracking a criminal suspect through “face-space” with a genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 416-421.
10. Cootes, T. F., Walker, K. N., and Taylor, C. J. 2000. View-based active appearance models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Face and Gesture Recognition. 227-232.
11. Craw, I. and Cameron, P. 1991. Parameterising images for recognition and reconstruction. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference BMCV '91. Turing Institute Press and Springer Verlag.
12. Davies, G., Milne, A., and Shepherd, J. 1983. Searching for operator skills in face composite reproduction. J. Police Sci. Adm. 11, 4, 405-409.
13. Davies, G. M. and Oldman, H. 1999. The impact of character attribution on composite production: A real world effect? Curr. Psychol. Dev. Learn. Pers. Social 18, 1, 128-139.
14. Davies, G. M., van der Willik, P., and Morrison, L. J. 2000. Facial composite production: A comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 1, 119-124.
15. FIC. 1999. Crime Management Division: Facial Imaging Course. Scottish Police College.
16. Frowd, C. D. 2001. EvoFIT: A Holistic, Evolutionary Facial Imaging System. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
17. Gibling, F. and Bennett, P. 1994. Artistic enhancement in the production of photo fit likeness: An examination of its effectiveness in leading to suspect identification. Psychol. Crime Law 1, 93-100.
18. Green, D. L. and Geiselman, R. E. 1989. Building composite facial images: Effects of feature saliency and delay of construction. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 714-721.
19. Hancock, P. J. B. 2000. Evolving faces from principal components. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 32, 2, 327-333.
20. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 1997. Testing principal component representations for faces. In Proceedings of 4th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, J. A. Bullinaria, D. W. Glasspool, and G. Houghton, Eds. Springer-Verlag, London, 84-97.
21. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 1998. A comparison of two computer-based face recognition systems with human perceptions of faces. Vis. Res. 38, 2277-2288.
22. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 2000. Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 9, 330-337.
23. Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., and Bruce, V. 1996. Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis. Mem. Cognit. 24, 26-40.
24. Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Pappas, C., and Thill, D. L. 1997. Identification of computer generated facial composites. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 2, 235-246.
25. Le Cun, Y., Denker, J. S., and Solla, S. A. 1990. Optimal brain damage. Adv. Neural Inf. Syst. 2, 598-605.
26. Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., and Hollander, S., 1979. Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 5, 3, 212-228.
27. McNeil, J. E., Wray, J. L., Hibler, N. S., Foster, W. D., Rhyne, C. E., and Thibault, R. 1987. Hypnosis and Identi-kit: A study to determine the effect of using hypnosis in conjunction with the making of identikit composites. J. Police Sci. Adm. 15, 63-67.
28. O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., Volz, H., and Salter, E. M. 1997. Three-dimensional caricatures of human heads: Distinctiveness and the perception of facial age. Perception 25, 719-732.
29. Rakover, S. S. and Cahlon, B. 1996. To catch a thief with a recognition test: The model and some empirical results. Cogn. Psychol. 21, 423-468.
30. Shapiro, P. N. and Penrod, S. D. 1986. Meta-analysis of facial identification rates. Psychol. Bull. 100, 139-156.
31. Sirovich, L. and Kirby, M. 1987. Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A 4, 519-524.
32. Troje, N. F. and Vetter, T. 1996. Representation of Human Faces. Tech. rep., Max-Planck-Institute, Tubingen, Germany
33. Valentine, T. and Endo, M. 1992. Towards an exemplar model of face processing: the effects of race and distinctiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 44, 671-703.