Recognition of unfamiliar faces

Abstract

SummaryPeople are excellent at identifying faces familiar to them, even from very low quality images, but are bad at recognising, or even matching, faces that are unfamiliar. In this review we shall consider some of the factors which 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 are informative about the nature of the representations derived from unfamiliar faces, suggesting that these 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 over the use of images from security video images. The relationships between different parts of the face (its "configuration") are as important to the impression created of an upright face as local features themselves, suggesting further constraints on the representations derived from faces. The review then turns to consider what computer face recognition systems may contribute to understanding both the theory and the practical problems of face identification. Computer systems can be used as an aid to person identification, but also in an attempt to model human perceptual processes. There are many approaches to computer recognition of faces, including ones based on low-level image analysis of whole face images, which have potential as models of human performance. Some systems show significant correlations with human perceptions of the same faces, for example recognising distinctive faces more easily. In some circumstances, some systems may exceed human abilities on unfamiliar faces. Finally, we look to the future of work in this area, that will incorporate motion and three-dimensional shape information.

Dissociation of human and computer voices in the brain: Evidence for a preattentive gestalt‐like perception

“…For example, Young et al [1987] demonstrate, that the discrimination of single features (eyes, chin, etc.) is difficult when they are part of two otherwise different faces [see Hancock et al, 2000]. Furthermore, also in facerecognition, specifically face-sensitive, areas have been localized, namely in the lateral fusiform gyrus, inferior occipital gyri, and the superior temporal sulcus, and also for the processing of face information, a ventral processing stream has been suggested in temporal lobe areas and the ventral limbic system [Haxby et al, 2000;Kanwisher et al, 1997;Perrett et al, 1984;Sergent et al, 1992].…”

Perspectives on Prosopagnosia and Models of Face Recognition

“…Parry et al, 1991;Young et al, 1993; see e.g. Bruce and Young, 1998;Hancock et al, 2000, for reviews) this does not suffice to establish that separate cognitive systems are involved. It is important to note that different tasks are used to investigate the processing of familiar and unfamiliar faces.…”

“…Hancock et al (2000) review evidence that familiar faces can be recognised from very poor quality photographs, while unfamiliar faces cannot. If there is impairment to the structural encoding stage, conceptually equivalent to a poor quality photograph, then processing of unfamiliar faces may be severely impaired, while the recognition of familiar faces and recall of semantic information can still be achieved with substantial success.…”

Super‐recognisers in Action: Evidence from Face‐matching and Face Memory Tasks

“…Yet, there are large individual differences in the ability to recognise (Bowles et al, 2009; Russell, Duchaine & Nakayama, 2009) and perceive (Megreya & Bindemann, 2013; Megreya & Burton, 2006) faces, and particular difficulties are associated with the processing of unfamiliar facial stimuli (see Hancock, Bruce & Burton, 2000 for a review). For instance, over 80 trials, Bruce et al (1999) asked participants to select a face from an array of 10 that matched the identity of a target face.…”