Things are Looking up: Differential Decline in Face Recognition following Pitch and Yaw Rotation

Favelle, Simone K; Palmisano, Stephen; Maloney, Ryan T.

doi:10.1068/p5637

Cited by 17 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the authors found that people were much faster at recognizing their own face than their colleagues’ faces, but recognition of colleagues’ faces was much more tolerant of a viewpoint change. Similarly, researchers have reported better performance recognizing faces across in-depth rotations compared to pitch rotations, looking up or looking down, and performance was better for pitch rotations of an upward compared to downward rotation (Favelle et al 2007). This also supports the finding that face recognition is highly dependent on one’s experience with different viewpoints.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Familiarity and Viewpoint on Face Recognition in Chimpanzees

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have shown that familiarity strongly influences how well humans recognize faces. This is particularly true when faces are encountered across a change in viewpoint. In this situation, recognition may be accomplished by matching partial or incomplete information about a face to a stored representation of the known individual, whereas such representations are not available for unknown faces. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share many of the same behavioral specializations for face processing as humans, but the influence of familiarity and viewpoint have never been compared in the same study. Here, we examined the ability of chimpanzees to match the faces of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics in their frontal and 3/4 views using a computerized task. Results showed that, while chimpanzees were able to accurately match both familiar and unfamiliar faces in their frontal orientations, performance was significantly impaired only when unfamiliar faces were presented across a change in viewpoint. Therefore, like in humans, face processing in chimpanzees appears to be sensitive to individual familiarity. We propose that familiarization is a robust mechanism for strengthening the representation of faces and has been conserved in primates to achieve efficient individual recognition over a range of natural viewing conditions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Familiarity and Viewpoint on Face Recognition in Chimpanzees

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Viewpoint effects on face recognition have predominantly been examined by using yaw rotations (about the vertical axis) and roll rotations (about the picture plane). Only recently have studies started to examine viewpoint effects for faces following pitch rotation (about the horizontal axis) (Favelle et al 2007;Liu et al 2005;Wallraven et al 2002). This research has shown that there are marked differences in recognition performance following rotations about the pitch and yaw axes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) The labeling of the pitch-up and pitch-down conditions in Favelle et al (2007) mistakenly refers to head rotation and not viewpoint rotation, ie the opposite of the current paper. The pitch-rotated face stimuli are identical in these two papers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Face Viewpoint Effects about Three Axes: The Role of Configural and Featural Processing

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We directly compared recognition for faces following 0 degrees-75 degrees viewpoint rotation about the yaw, pitch, and roll axes. The aim was to determine the extent to which configural and featural information supported face recognition following rotations about each of these axes. Experiment 1 showed that performance on a sequential-matching task was viewpoint-dependent for all three types of rotation. The best face-recognition accuracy and shortest reaction time was found for roll rotations, then for yaw rotations, and finally the worst accuracy and slowest reaction time was found for pitch rotations. Directional differences in recognition were found for pitch rotations, but not for roll or yaw. Experiment 2 provided evidence that, in all three cases, viewpoint-dependent declines in recognition were primarily driven by the loss of configural information. However, it also appeared that significant featural information was lost following yaw and pitch (but not roll) rotations. Together, these findings show that unfamiliar-face recognition is viewpoint-dependent following rotation about each axis (and in each direction), and that performance is based on the availability of configural and, to a lesser extent, featural information.

show abstract

“…In Experiment 1 we vary the views available, a manipulation well-known to affect sensitivity (Bruce et al, 1987; Hill et al, 1997; Troje and Bulthoff, 1998; Favelle et al, 2007), especially for unfamiliar faces (Hancock et al, 2000). In many of the studies cited above the faces being compared were presented in the same view (Freire et al, 2000; Mondloch et al, 2002; Rhodes et al, 2007; Dakin and Omigie, 2009; Ross et al, 2010) and this allows decisions to be based on image differences alone: all differences in the images presented result from differences between the faces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Different is Different? Criterion and Sensitivity in Face-Space

Hill¹,

Claes²,

Corcoran³

et al. 2011

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not all detectable differences between face images correspond to a change in identity. Here we measure both sensitivity to change and the criterion difference that is perceived as a change in identity. Both measures are used to test between possible similarity metrics. Using a same/different task and the method of constant stimuli criterion is specified as the 50% “different” point (P50) and sensitivity as the difference limen (DL). Stimuli and differences are defined within a “face-space” based on principal components analysis of measured differences in three-dimensional shape. In Experiment 1 we varied views available. Criterion (P50) was lowest for identical full-face view comparisons that can be based on image differences. When comparing across views P50, was the same for a static 45° change as for multiple animated views, although sensitivity (DL) was higher for the animated case, where it was as high as for identical views. Experiments 2 and 3 tested possible similarity metrics. Experiment 2 contrasted Euclidean and Mahalanobis distance by setting PC1 or PC2 to zero. DL did not differ between conditions consistent with Mahalanobis. P50 was lower when PC2 changed emphasizing that perceived changes in identity are not determined by the magnitude of Euclidean physical differences. Experiment 3 contrasted a distance with an angle based similarity measure. We varied the distinctiveness of the faces being compared by varying distance from the origin, a manipulation that affects distances but not angles between faces. Angular P50 and DL were both constant for faces from 1 to 2 SD from the mean, consistent with an angular measure. We conclude that both criterion and sensitivity need to be considered and that an angular similarity metric based on standardized PC values provides the best metric for specifying what physical differences will be perceived to change in identity.

show abstract

Things are Looking up: Differential Decline in Face Recognition following Pitch and Yaw Rotation

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Effect of Familiarity and Viewpoint on Face Recognition in Chimpanzees

Effect of Familiarity and Viewpoint on Face Recognition in Chimpanzees

Face Viewpoint Effects about Three Axes: The Role of Configural and Featural Processing

How Different is Different? Criterion and Sensitivity in Face-Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About