Cited by 102

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Spatial Content and Spatial Quantisation Effects in Face Recognition

Costen, Nicholas P, Parker, Denis M, Craw, Ian·1994·Perception

Abstract

It has recently become apparent that if face images are degraded by spatial quantisation, or block averaging, there is a nonlinear acceleration of the decline in accuracy of recognition as block size increases. This suggests recognition requires a critical minimum range of object spatial frequencies. Two experiments were performed to clarify the phenomenon. In experiment 1, the speed and accuracy of recognition for six frontoparallel photographs of faces were measured. After familiarisation training sessions, the images were shown for 100 ms with 11, 21, and 42 pixels per face, horizontally measured. Transformations calculated to remove the same range of spatial frequencies were performed by means of quantisation, a Fourier low-pass filter, and Gaussian blurring. Although accuracy declined and speed increased in a significant, nonlinear manner in all cases as the image quality was reduced, it did so at a faster rate for the quantised images. In experiment 2, faces rated as being typical were shown at 9, 12, 23, and 45 pixels per face and with appropriate Fourier low-pass versions. The nonlinear decline was confirmed and it was shown that it could not be attributed to a ceiling effect. A further condition allowed quantised and Fourier low-pass conditions to be compared with an unstructured-noise condition of equal strength to that of the quantised images. These gave comparable, but slightly less impaired, recognition than the quantised images. It can be inferred from these results that the removal of a critical range of at least 8–16 cycles per face of information explains the step decline in recognition seen with quantised images. However, the decline found with quantised images is reinforced by internal masking from pixelisation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1068/p230129

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?

  • A minimum horizontal pixel count of 10-16 per face for a known face and 20 pixels for an unknown face is considered the bare minimum for successful identification in frontal view.

    “A minimum horizontal pixel count of 10–16 per face for a known face [121,123,124] and 20 pixels for an unknown face [92] is considered the bare minimum for successful identification in frontal view.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1080/09541449108406221 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/09541449108406222 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0042-6989(75)90200-X · DOI
  4. 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90049-A · DOI
  5. 10.1002/acp.2350060705 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/0278-2626(88)90010-3 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107 · DOI
  8. Edwards R E, 1967, Fourier Series: A Modern Introduction
  9. 10.1068/p120195 · DOI
  10. 10.1068/p110319 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/scientificamerican1173-70 · DOI
  12. 10.1126/science.180.4091.1194 · DOI
  13. 10.1068/p150595 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0278-2626(89)90019-5 · DOI
  15. 10.3758/BF03202390 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/305226a0 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/0278-2626(88)90011-5 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/0278-2626(87)90047-9 · DOI
  19. 10.3758/BF03204396 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/0042-6989(87)90204-5 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0278-2626(85)90070-3 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90061-Y · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90016-8 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/978-94-009-4420-6_42 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/14640749308401045 · DOI
  26. 10.3758/BF03208310 · DOI
  27. 10.1068/p150525 · DOI
  28. 10.1364/JOSAA.4.002006 · DOI
  29. 10.1068/p160747 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Costen, N. P., Parker, D. M., & Craw, I.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2UB, Scotland, UK
  • Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2TY, Scotland, UK
Venue
Perception
Published
1994-02
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
129-146
ISSN
  • 0301-0066
  • 1468-4233
Cited by
102
References
0
Language
en

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