CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving Discrimination and Face Matching with Caricature

McIntyre, Alex H., Hancock, Peter J. B., Kittler, Josef, Langton, Stephen R. H.·2013·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.2966
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Identification of faces from photographs is a common security measure, but matching unfamiliar faces produces high rates of error. Caricatures of familiar people are highly identifiable because they exaggerate distinctive features. We investigated whether exaggerating unfamiliar faces through caricaturing could also improve face‐matching accuracy. In Experiment 1, face‐matching arrays were caricatured relative to an average by 30%, 50% and 70%. Correct rejection of the target‐absent arrays was improved at all levels. Accurate matches increased at 30%, but at 70%, the transformation was too extreme, and all of the arrays were more likely to be rejected. In Experiment 2, photographic identification (ID) images were caricatured by 30% and 50% and matched to life‐size photographs. Rejection of foils improved, but the ID of matching images was impaired. Modest levels of caricature may improve discrimination in unfamiliar face matching, but at stronger levels, a conservative response bias may inhibit accurate ID. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.2966

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Biases at the stimulus level of matching tasks might merely reflect that some face pairs are easier than others, reflecting similarity of faces depicted.

    “Thus, biases at the stimulus level of matching tasks, might merely reflect that some face pairs are just easier than others, reflecting the similarity of the faces depicted (e.g., Fysh & Bindemann, 2023; for similar effects shown by somewhat increasing the distinctiveness of faces see McIntyre et al., 2013).”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as McIntyre et al., 2013

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1007/3‐540‐57956‐7_33 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0956797612474021 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/0954144910840622 · DOI
  4. 10.1068/p230075 · DOI
  5. 10.2307/1578048 · DOI
  6. 10.1037/1076‐898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1037/1076‐898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1111/1467‐9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.3758/BF03211818 · DOI
  10. Ellis H. D., 1990, Developmental trends in face recognition, The Psychologist, 3, 114
  11. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/(SICI)1099‐0720(199706)11:3<211::AID‐ACP430>3.0.CO;2‐O · DOI
  13. 10.1068/p260733 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/1467‐9280.00274 · DOI
  15. Macmillan N. A., 2005, Detection Theory: A user's guide
  16. 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
  17. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
  19. Rhodes G., 1994, Object and Face Recognition. Special Issue of Visual Cognition, Vol. 1, No. 2/3, 275
  20. 10.1016/0010‐0285(87)90016‐8 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.080 · DOI
  22. 10.1167/12.9.976 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/09541449108406223 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02550.x · DOI
  25. 10.1080/135062896395616 · DOI
  26. 10.1109/38.946630 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/14640749108400966 · DOI
  28. 10.1068/p150525 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/14640749208401305 · DOI
  30. 10.3758/s13423‐013‐0475‐3 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McIntyre, A. H., Hancock, P. J. B., Kittler, J., & Langton, S. R. H.
Affiliations
  • Psychology, School of Natural Science University of Stirling Stirling UK
  • Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, Faculty of Engineering &amp; Physical Sciences University of Surrey Surrey UK
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
725-734
ISSN
  • 0888-4080
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.2966
Cited by
21
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 10 d)

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