CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Recognition of unfamiliar faces

Hancock, Peter J.B., Bruce, Vicki, Burton, A.Mike·2000·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01519-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People are excellent at identifying faces familiar to them, even from very low quality images, but are bad at recognizing, or even matching, unfamiliar faces. In this review we shall consider some of the factors that affect our abilities to match unfamiliar faces. Major differences in orientation (e.g. inversion) or greyscale information (e.g. negation) affect face processing dramatically, and such effects suggest that representations derived from unfamiliar faces are based on relatively low-level image descriptions. Consistent with this, even relatively minor differences in lighting and viewpoint create problems for human face matching, leading to potentially important problems for the use of images from security videos. The relationships between different parts of the face (its 'configuration') are as important to the impression created of an upright face as the local features themselves, suggesting further constraints on the representations derived from faces. We go on to consider the contribution of computer face-recognition systems to the understanding of the theory and the practical problems of face identification. Finally, we look to the future of research in this area that will incorporate motion and 3-D shape information.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01519-9

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?

  • Unfamiliar face matching is closely bound to the visual properties of the particular images.

    “unfamiliar face matching is closely bound to the visual properties of the particular images (Hancock, Bruce & Burton, 2000)”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Hancock, Bruce & Burton, 2000

  • Unfamiliar matching relies heavily on the visual properties of the particular images.

    “Previous research has demonstrated that unfamiliar matching relies heavily on the visual properties of the particular images (Hancock, Bruce & Burton, 2000)”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Hancock, Bruce & Burton, 2000

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Burton, 1999, Face recognition in poor-quality video, Psychol. Sci., 10, 243, 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  2. O’Toole, 1998, Stimulus-specific effects in face recognition over changes in viewpoint, Vis. Res., 38, 2351, 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00042-X · DOI
  3. Hill, 1997, Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition, Cognition, 62, 201, 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00785-8 · DOI
  4. Moses, 1996, Generalization to novel images in upright and inverted faces, Perception, 25, 443, 10.1068/p250443 · DOI
  5. O’Toole, 1998, The perception of face gender: The role of stimulus structure in recognition and classification, Mem. Cognit., 26, 146, 10.3758/BF03211378 · DOI
  6. Bruce, 1994, The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognizing the sex and identities of faces, Perception, 23, 803, 10.1068/p230803 · DOI
  7. Hayes, 1986, Recognition of positive and negative bandpass-filtered images, Perception, 15, 595, 10.1068/p150595 · DOI
  8. Johnston, 1992, Recognizing faces, Perception, 21, 365, 10.1068/p210365 · DOI
  9. Hill, 1996, Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 22, 986, 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.986 · DOI
  10. Kemp, 1996, Perception and recognition of normal and negative faces, Perception, 25, 37, 10.1068/p250037 · DOI
  11. Thompson, 1980, Margaret Thatcher, Perception, 9, 483, 10.1068/p090483 · DOI
  12. Valentine, 1988, Upside-down faces, Br. J. Psychol., 79, 471, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02747.x · DOI
  13. Farah, 1998, What is ‘‘special’’ about face perception?, Psychol. Rev., 105, 482, 10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.482 · DOI
  14. Young, 1987, Configurational information in face perception, Perception, 16, 747, 10.1068/p160747 · DOI
  15. Bartlett, 1993, Inversion and configuration of faces, Cognit. Psychol., 25, 281, 10.1006/cogp.1993.1007 · DOI
  16. Searcy, 1996, Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 22, 904, 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.904 · DOI
  17. Leder, 1998, Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol., 51, 449, 10.1080/027249898391486 · DOI
  18. Tanaka, 1993, Parts and wholes in face recognition, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol., 46A, 225, 10.1080/14640749308401045 · DOI
  19. Cooper, 1996, Differences in the coding of spatial relations in faces and objects, Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 37, 842
  20. Leder, H. and Bruce, V. When inverted faces are recognized: the role of configural information in face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (in press) · DOI
  21. Aguirre, 1999, Stimulus inversion and the responses of face and object-sensitive cortical areas, Neuro Report, 10, 189
  22. Haxby, 1999, The effect of face inversion on activity in human neural systems for face and object perception, Neuron, 22, 189, 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80690-X · DOI
  23. Light, 1979, Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem., 5, 212, 10.1037/0278-7393.5.3.212 · DOI
  24. Valentine, 1986, Recognizing familiar faces, Can. J. Psychol., 40, 300, 10.1037/h0080101 · DOI
  25. Rhodes, 1987, Identification and ratings of caricatures, Cognit. Psychol., 19, 473, 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90016-8 · DOI
  26. Benson, 1991, Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures, Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol., 3, 105, 10.1080/09541449108406222 · DOI
  27. Lewis, 1999, A unified account of the effects of caricaturing faces, Vis. Cognit., 6, 1, 10.1080/713756800 · DOI
  28. Valentine, 1991, A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol., 43A, 161, 10.1080/14640749108400966 · DOI
  29. Byatt, 1998, Recognition of own-race and other-race caricatures, Vis. Res., 38, 2455, 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00469-0 · DOI
  30. Burton, 1998, The face-space typicality paradox, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol., 51A, 475, 10.1080/713755768 · DOI
  31. Wickham, 2000, Facial distinctiveness, Br. J. Psychol., 91, 99, 10.1348/000712600161709 · DOI
  32. Busey, 1998, Exemplar-based models of face recognition, J. Math. Psychol., 42, 494
  33. O’Toole, 1994, Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect, Mem. Cognit., 22, 208, 10.3758/BF03208892 · DOI
  34. Hancock, 1996, Face processing, Mem. Cognit., 24, 26, 10.3758/BF03197270 · DOI
  35. Scheuchenpflug, 1999, Predicting face similarity judgements with a computational model of face space, Acta Psychologica, 100, 229, 10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00019-5 · DOI
  36. Logie, 1987, Face recognition, pose and ecological validity, Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 1, 53, 10.1002/acp.2350010108 · DOI
  37. Bruce, V. et al. Verification of face identities from images captured on video. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. (in press) · DOI · Paper page
  38. Chellappa, 1995, Human and machine recognition of faces, Proc. IEEE, 83, 705, 10.1109/5.381842 · DOI
  39. Grudin, 2000, On internal representations in face recognition systems, Pattern Recognition, 33, 1161, 10.1016/S0031-3203(99)00104-1 · DOI
  40. Phillips, 1998, The FERET database and evaluation procedure for face-recognition algorithms, Image Vis. Comput., 16, 295, 10.1016/S0262-8856(97)00070-X · DOI
  41. Brunelli, 1993, Face recognition, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell., 15, 1042, 10.1109/34.254061 · DOI
  42. Turk, 1991, Eigenfaces for recognition, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 3, 71, 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.1.71 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Wiskott, 1997, Face recognition by elastic bunch graph matching, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell., 19, 775, 10.1109/34.598235 · DOI
  44. Hancock, 1998, A comparison of two computer-based face identification systems with human perceptions of faces, Vis. Res., 38, 2277, 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00439-2 · DOI
  45. Bruce, 1986, Understanding face recognition, Br. J. Psychol., 77, 305, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x · DOI
  46. Burton, 1990, Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model, Br. J. Psychol., 81, 361, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02367.x · DOI
  47. Burton, 1999, From pixels to people, Cognit. Sci., 23, 1, 10.1207/s15516709cog2301_1 · DOI
  48. Blanz, V. and Vetter, T. (1999) A morphable model for the synthesis of 3-D faces. SIGGRAPH’99 Conference Proceedings. · DOI
  49. O’Toole, 1997, Three-dimensional caricatures of human heads: distinctiveness and the perception of facial age, Perception, 26, 719, 10.1068/p260719 · DOI
  50. Christie, 1998, The role of dynamic information in the recognition of unfamiliar faces, Mem. Cognit., 26, 780, 10.3758/BF03211397 · DOI
  51. Pike, 1997, Recognizing moving faces, Vis. Cognit., 4, 409, 10.1080/713756769 · DOI
  52. Knight, 1997, The role of movement in face recognition, Vis. Cognit., 4, 265, 10.1080/713756764 · DOI
  53. Lander, 1999, The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces, Mem. Cognit., 27, 974, 10.3758/BF03201228 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-09
Volume
4
Issue
9
Pages
330-337
ISSN
1364-6613
DOI
10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01519-9
Cited by
464
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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