CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Recognizing Age-Separated Face Images: Humans and Machines

Yadav, Daksha, Singh, Richa, Vatsa, Mayank, Noore, Afzel·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112234PMC PMC4256302
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0112234

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Yadav et al. (2014) found poor face matching performance for full-face images of children (60%, where chance level was 50%) when the two photographs depicted an individual once in the age range 0-5 years and again in the range 6-10 years.

    “In a study on machine face recognition, Yadav et al. (2014) found poor face matching performance for full-face images of children (60%, where chance level was 50%) when the two photographs depicted an individual once in the age range 0–5 years and again in the range 6–10 years.”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Yadav et al. (2014)

  • The performance level in Experiment 2 (64%) was similar to low levels of accuracy found in previous research investigating matching across age gaps where individuals were depicted once in the age range 0-5 years and again in the range 6-10 years.

    “Our performance level here (64%) was similar to the low levels of accuracy found in previous research investigating matching across age gaps where individuals were depicted once in the age range 0–5 years and again in the range 6–10 years (Yadav et al., 2014).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Yadav et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. AE Mayes, 2010, Environmental and lifestyle factors associated with perceived facial age in Chinese women, PLoS ONE 5, (12), e15270, 10.1371/journal.pone.0015270 · DOI
  2. Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the head and face. New York: Raven Press, 2 edition.
  3. MG Rhodes, 2009, Age estimation of faces: A review, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23 (1), 1, 10.1002/acp.1442 · DOI
  4. Patterson E, Sethuram A, Albert M, Ricanek K, King M (2007) Aspects of age variation in facial morphology affecting biometrics. In: IEEE International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems. pp.1–6. · DOI
  5. D Burt, 1995, Perception of age in adult Caucasian male faces: Computer graphic manipulation of shape and colour information, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 259 (1355), 137, 10.1098/rspb.1995.0021 · DOI
  6. G Jones, 1984, The eyes have it: Young children's discrimination of age in masked and unmasked facial photographs, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38 (2), 328, 10.1016/0022-0965(84)90129-2 · DOI
  7. PA George, 1998, The influence of feature-based information in the age processing of unfamiliar faces, Perception, 27 (3), 295, 10.1068/p270295 · DOI
  8. PA George, 1995, Factors influencing the accuracy of age estimates of unfamiliar faces, Perception, 24 (9), 1059, 10.1068/p241059 · DOI
  9. PA George, 2000, The role of spatial and surface cues in the age-processing of unfamiliar faces, Visual Cognition, 7 (4), 485, 10.1080/135062800394621 · DOI
  10. YH Kwon, 1999, Age classification from facial images, Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 71 (1), 1, 10.1006/cviu.1997.0549 · DOI
  11. N Ramanathan, 2006, Face verification across age progression, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15 (11), 3349, 10.1109/TIP.2006.881993 · DOI
  12. Y Fu, 2008, Human age estimation with regression on discriminative aging manifold, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10 (4), 578, 10.1109/TMM.2008.921847 · DOI
  13. Yang Z, Ai H (2007) Demographic classification with local binary patterns. In: Lee SW, Li SZeditorsAdvances in Biometrics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, volume 4642 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. pp.464–473. · DOI
  14. JS Anastasi, 2005, An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12 (6), 1043, 10.3758/BF03206441 · DOI · Paper page
  15. G Anzures, 2010, Culture shapes efficiency of facial age judgments, PLoS ONE, 5 (7), e11679, 10.1371/journal.pone.0011679 · DOI
  16. A Lanitis, 2002, Toward automatic simulation of aging effects on face images, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24 (4), 442, 10.1109/34.993553 · DOI
  17. A Lanitis, 2004, Comparing different classifiers for automatic age estimation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 34 (1), 621, 10.1109/TSMCB.2003.817091 · DOI
  18. U Park, 2010, Age-invariant face recognition, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32 (5), 947, 10.1109/TPAMI.2010.14 · DOI
  19. Z Li, 2011, A discriminative model for age invariant face recognition, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 6 (3), 1028, 10.1109/TIFS.2011.2156787 · DOI
  20. Guo G, Mu G, Ricanek K (2010) Cross-age face recognition on a very large database: The performance versus age intervals and improvement using soft biometric traits. In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition. pp.3392–3395. · DOI
  21. M Buhrmester, 2011, Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (1), 3, 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  22. A Lanitis, 2008, Comparative evaluation of automatic age-progression methodologies, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2008, 239480, 10.1155/2008/239480 · DOI
  23. Tistarelli M, Yadav D, Vatsa M, Singh R (2013) Short-and long-time ageing effects in face recognition. In: Fairhurst Meditor, Age Factors in Biometric Processing, IET, chapter 14. pp.253–275. · DOI
  24. Yadav D, Vatsa M, Singh R, Tistarelli M (2013) Bacteria foraging fusion for face recognition across age progression. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. pp.173–179. · DOI
  25. C Carbon, 2013, Age-dependent face detection and face categorization performance, PLoS ONE, 8 (10), e79164, 10.1371/journal.pone.0079164 · DOI
  26. DG Altman, 1994, Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity, BMJ, 308, 1552, 10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552 · DOI
  27. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2004) Detection theory: A user's guide. Psychology press. · DOI · Paper page
  28. McNicol D (2005) A primer of signal detection theory. Psychology Press. · DOI
  29. Norwich KH (1993) Information, sensation, and perception. Academic Press.
  30. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2013) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons.
  31. CA Meissner, 2001, Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7 (1), 3, 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3 · DOI · Paper page
  32. JF Cross, 1971, Sex, race, age, and beauty as factors in recognition of faces, Perception and Psychophysics, 10 (6), 393, 10.3758/BF03210319 · DOI · Paper page
  33. AM Megreya, 2011, Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks, Acta Psychologica, 137 (1), 83, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  34. T Ojala, 1996, A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on feature distributions, Pattern Recognition, 29 (1), 51, 10.1016/0031-3203(95)00067-4 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Wolf L, Hassner T, Taigman Y (2008) Descriptor based methods in the wild. In: Real-Life Images workshop at the European Conference on Computer Vision.
  36. Vapnik VN (1998) Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley, 1 edition.
  37. A Ross, 2003, Information fusion in biometrics, Pattern Recognition Letters, 24 (13), 2115, 10.1016/S0167-8655(03)00079-5 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ricanek K, Tesafaye T (2006) MORPH: A longitudinal image database of normal adult age-progression. In: 7th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition. pp.341–345. · DOI · Paper page
  39. J Kittler, 1998, Combining classifiers: A theoretical framework, Pattern analysis and applications, 1, 18, 10.1007/BF01238023 · DOI
  40. M Vatsa, 2007, Integrating image quality in 2 ν-SVM biometric match score fusion, International Journal of Neural Systems, 17 (5), 343, 10.1142/S0129065707001196 · DOI
  41. M Singh, 2014, On recognizing face images with weight and age variations, IEEE Access, 2, 822, 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2344667 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yadav, D., Singh, R., Vatsa, M., & Noore, A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-12-04
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
e112234
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0112234
PMC
PMC4256302
Cited by
22
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

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