CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the effect of facial disguises on forensic facial comparison by morphological analysis

Bacci, Nicholas, Briers, Nanette, Steyn, Maryna·2021·Journal of Forensic Sciences
DOI 10.1111/1556-4029.14722
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Disguises are commonly used to mask a person's facial appearance in areas under closed‐circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. While many studies attempted to understand the effects of disguises, such as hats and glasses, on facial recognition, limited studies have looked at disguises in forensic facial comparison. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of forensic facial comparison by morphological analysis (MA) in a CCTV sample with sunglasses and brimmed caps. The sample was obtained from the Wits Face Database and organized into 81 face pools of one target facial image wearing a disguise (cap or sunglasses) and 10 potential matching images. MA was conducted across face pools, and confusion matrices were used to assess the outcomes. Surprisingly, sunglasses had limited effect on MA performance both in accuracy (90.4%) and in reliability (κ = 0.798), while caps markedly decreased both accuracy (68.1%) and reliability (κ = 0.639). Error rates were associated primarily with false negatives in both samples (caps: 42.4%; sunglasses: 16.1%) despite the sample distribution favoring false‐positive errors, which were very low (caps: 0.6%; sunglasses: 0%). Similarly to other studies, hats and caps were more harmful to correct identification when compared to sunglasses, which actually resulted in better accuracy than regular CCTV recordings. The effect of brimmed caps on accuracy was attributed to the overall loss of facial information caused. On training analysts, it may be helpful to instruct purposefully avoiding overreliance on easily disguised facial features, as other regions of the face also contain substantial feature information.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1556-4029.14722

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Faces disguised by brimmed caps yielded an exceedingly low CCA (68.1%), yet not as low as the analogue CCTV comparisons (33.1%).

    “In contrast, faces disguised by brimmed caps yielded an exceedingly low CCA (68.1%) [49], yet not nearly as low as the analogue CCTV comparisons (33.1%) [48] (Figure 2).”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

  • All other analyses from the various CCTV and photographic images showed improved performance under a strict iteration.

    “All other analyses from the various CCTV and photographic images showed improved performance under a strict iteration [21,48,49].”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Standardized mounting heights translate to a steep angle of incidence, which reduces image quality and obscures relevant facial detail due to increased subject-to-camera distance and loss of useable resolution.

    “The problem with these standardized mounting heights is that they translate to a steep angle of incidence. This in turn reduces image quality and obscures relevant facial detail as a result of the increased SCD and subsequent loss of useable resolution [48,49].”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

  • The performance of MA in faces disguised with sunglasses was markedly high (90.4%), surpassing performance under the same standard CCTV conditions without sunglasses (82.6%), but not better than photographic (99.1%) or eye-level CCTV data (97.3%).

    “Overall, the performance of MA in faces disguised with sunglasses was markedly high (90.4%) [49], in fact surpassing the performance of facial comparison under the same standard CCTV conditions without sunglasses (82.6%), but not better than the photographic (99.1%) [21] or eye-level CCTV data (97.3%) [48] (Figure 2).”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Across all of the studies, chance-corrected accuracy (CCA) was the best and most representative measure of accuracy, compared to hit rate and balanced accuracy.

    “Across all of our studies, the best measure of accuracy was found to be the chance corrected accuracy (CCA) [21,48,49].”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Norris C, 2004, The growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space, Surveill Soc., 2, 110
  2. 10.1080/15614263.2018.1473770 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/ICSSIT46314.2019.8987961 · DOI
  4. 10.1109/MMUL.2012.4 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Robertson DJ, 2019, Facial identity verification: five challenges facing practitioners, Keesing J Doc., 59, 3
  7. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.scijus.2008.10.011 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bromby M, 2006, CCTV and expert evidence: addressing the reliability of new sciences, Archbold News., 9, 6
  10. 10.1017/CBO9781139049566.012 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lee W‐L, 2009, Matching unfamiliar faces from poor quality closed‐circuit television (CCTV) footage: an evaluation of the effect of training on facial identification ability, AXIS Online J Cent Anat Hum Identif., 1, 19
  15. 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1002/acp.1826 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/13506285.2012.654624 · DOI
  18. 10.1037/0278-7393.3.4.406 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/BF01056410 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/9781118469538.ch7 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/BF02686820 · DOI
  22. 10.1109/EST.2017.8090397 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1037/h0093937 · DOI
  24. 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281 · DOI
  25. 10.1068/p080431 · DOI
  26. 10.1177/0301006617725242 · DOI
  27. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/cogs.12231 · DOI
  29. 10.7717/peerj.4437 · DOI
  30. 10.1037/xap0000108 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_170 · DOI
  32. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193455 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1007/s00414-010-0446-4 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/1556-4029.12127 · DOI
  35. BacciN DavimesJ SteynM BriersN.Wits Face Database. Wits Institutional Repository Environment on Dspace.2020.https://hdl.handle.net/10539/29924. Accessed 18 Mar 2021.
  36. 10.12688/f1000research.50887.1 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Speckeis C, 2011, Can ACE‐V be validated?, J Forensic Identif., 61, 201
  38. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.006 · DOI · Paper page
  39. R Core Team, 2020, R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer program]
  40. 10.18637/jss.v028.i05 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003 · DOI
  42. 10.1162/089976698300017197 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1080/13506285.2013.832451 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1080/00224545.1994.9712199 · DOI
  46. 10.1037/xap0000213 · DOI
  47. 10.1002/acp.3239 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Valentine T, 2015, Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites and CCTV, 10.1002/9781118469538 · DOI
  49. 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_668 · DOI
  50. 10.1167/16.3.40 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.002 · DOI
  52. 10.2307/2061058 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/978-981-15-1465-4_50 · DOI
  54. 10.1109/SIPROCESS.2018.8600440 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/S0379-0738(02)00115-9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bacci, N., Briers, N., & Steyn, M.
Affiliations
Human Variation and Identification Research Unit School of Anatomical Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-22
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
1220-1233
ISSN
  • 0022-1198
  • 1556-4029
DOI
10.1111/1556-4029.14722
Cited by
4
References
3
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