CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Matching Face Images Taken on the Same Day or Months Apart: the Limitations of Photo ID

Megreya, Ahmed M., Sandford, Adam, Burton, A. Mike·2013·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.2965
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: It is well‐established that matching images of unfamiliar faces is rather error prone. However, there is an important mismatch between face matching in laboratory and realistic settings. All of the currently available face‐matching databases were designed to establish the baseline level of unfamiliar face perception. Therefore, target and test images for each face identity have been taken on the same day, minimizing within‐face variations. In realistic settings, on the other hand, faces do vary, even day to day. This study examined the proficiency of matching images of unfamiliar faces, which were taken on the same day or months apart. In two experiments, same‐day images were matched substantially more accurately and faster than different‐date photographs using the standard 1‐in‐10 and pairwise face‐matching tasks. This suggests that experimental studies on face matching underestimate its difficulty in real‐world situations. Photographs of unfamiliar faces seem to be unreliable proofs of identity, especially if the ID documents do not use very recent images of the holders. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.2965

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year.

    “Previous research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year [17, 22, 23] and so we expected error rates to be higher than in similar test using images taken on the same day [12].”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

    The General Discussion (page unavailable) reports that hit rates fell by about 20 percentage points when unfamiliar-face images were taken on different dates, and says age-related changes could increase mistaken identification. The Stimuli & procedure section (page unavailable) gives a mean separation of 17.2 months, not a condition restricted to images more than a year apart. The reported change is approximately 20 percentage points in accuracy, rather than a 20% relative increase in error. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Hit rates for adult faces decrease with only 17 months passing between two photographic sittings.

    “hit rates (correct identification of targets) for adult faces decrease with only 17 months passing between two photographic sittings (Megreya, Sandford & Burton, 2013)”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Megreya, Sandford & Burton, 2013

  • In adult face matching, images taken only minutes apart produced significant levels of error, and performance decreased even further as months passed between photographic sittings.

    “Research with adult face matching has shown that images taken only minutes apart produced significant levels of error (Burton, White & McNeill, 2010), with performance decreasing even further as months passed by between photographic sittings (Fysh & Bindemann, 2018; Megreya, Sandford & Burton, 2013).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Megreya, Sandford & Burton, 2013

  • Consistent with the effect of face aging on matching adult faces, poorer performance for younger compared to older targets was only evident in target present trials.

    “Further, consistent with the effect of face aging on matching adult faces [23], poorer performance for younger compared to older targets was only evident in target present trials.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

  • Face age only affected accuracy in target present trials, both here and in previous work, and so does not account for the equivalent error rates observed in target absent arrays.

    “However, face age only affected accuracy in target present trials, both here and in previous work [17, 23], and so does not account for the equivalent error rates we observed in target absent arrays.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1037/a0029635 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.001 · DOI
  3. 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
  4. 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
  5. 10.1068/p6922 · DOI
  6. Borchard E. M., 1932, Convicting the innocent: Sixty‐five actual errors of criminal justice
  7. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0015 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00186-9 · DOI
  11. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1068/p3335 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/13506280444000021 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/09541440340000439 · DOI
  15. 10.1348/000712600161907 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.3758/BF03201219 · DOI
  20. Jenkins R., 2008, Limitations in facial identification: The evidence, Justice of the Peace, 172, 4
  21. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
  23. 10.1177/0956797609356508 · DOI
  24. Megreya A. M., 2012, Face recognition: Methods, applications and technology, 1
  25. 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/acp.1243 · DOI
  28. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
  31. 10.1080/13576500903213755 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1007/s11896-011-9098-7 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Memon A., 2003, Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility
  36. Münsterberg H., 1908, On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime
  37. Narby D. J., 1996, Psychological issues in eyewitness identification, 23
  38. 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/13506285.2012.654624 · DOI
  40. 10.1002/acp.1806 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/00224545.1994.9712199 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Megreya, A. M., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology Menoufia University Egypt
  • School of Psychology Aberdeen University UK
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10-30
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
700-706
ISSN
  • 0888-4080
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.2965
Cited by
92
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review