The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Spatial Content and Spatial Quantisation Effects in Face Recognition
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [123]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1080/09541449108406221 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/09541449108406222 · DOI
- 10.1016/0042-6989(75)90200-X · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90049-A · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.2350060705 · DOI
- 10.1016/0278-2626(88)90010-3 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107 · DOI
- Edwards R E, 1967, Fourier Series: A Modern Introduction
- 10.1068/p120195 · DOI
- 10.1068/p110319 · DOI
- 10.1038/scientificamerican1173-70 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.180.4091.1194 · DOI
- 10.1068/p150595 · DOI
- 10.1016/0278-2626(89)90019-5 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03202390 · DOI
- 10.1038/305226a0 · DOI
- 10.1016/0278-2626(88)90011-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/0278-2626(87)90047-9 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03204396 · DOI
- 10.1016/0042-6989(87)90204-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/0278-2626(85)90070-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90061-Y · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90016-8 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-009-4420-6_42 · DOI
- 10.1080/14640749308401045 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03208310 · DOI
- 10.1068/p150525 · DOI
- 10.1364/JOSAA.4.002006 · DOI
- 10.1068/p160747 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eccentricity bias as an organizing principle for human high-order object areas
Hasson, U., Levy, I., Behrmann, M., Hendler, T., & Malach, R. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00662-1 · Cited by 578
Making the ineffable explicit: estimating the information employed for face classifications
Mangini, M. C., & Biederman, I. (2004) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2802_4 · Cited by 208
Simulating prosthetic vision: II. Measuring functional capacity
Chen, S. C., Suaning, G. J., Morley, J. W., & Lovell, N. H. (2009) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.07.003 · Cited by 59
Wallace, S., Coleman, M., Pascalis, O., & Bailey, A. (2006) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p5442 · Cited by 42
Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions
Bacci, N., Davimes, J. G., Steyn, M., & Briers, N. (2021) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology10121269 · Cited by 26
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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