Abstract
Facial identification based on a comparison with a photo-ID is the most standard way to prove identity at security controls. Two experiments are performed controlling for the presence or absence of within-contour facial periphery (masking) and its substitution for an average periphery image (averaging), measuring matching accuracy, reaction time and signal-detection measures d’ an C. Experiment 1 compared face matching for the original periphery in the pair, its masking and its averaging using a sample of frontal image pairs. Experiment 2 compared matches in the average condition with and without an apparent gap around internal features. Results show that masking of facial periphery had a detrimental effect on unfamiliar face matching accuracy accompanied by an increased tendency to positive responses, while averaging composites yielded no difference as compared to the original pair. No differences were found for matching in conditions with or without an apparent gap. The results suggest that face periphery contributes to unfamiliar face matching accuracy through a holistic process which is disrupted when focusing exclusively on the innermost features; the effect is dependent on the global structure of the face image and not related to low-level details. These results should be considered in the context of improving unfamiliar face matching.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, S., Burton, A. M., Schweinberger, S. R., & Wiese, H. (2017). Event-related potentials reveal the development of stable face representations from natural variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1620–1632. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195851.
Bobak, A. K., Dowsett, A. J., & Bate, S. (2016). Solving the border control problem: Evidence of enhanced face matching in individuals with extraordinary face recognition skills. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148148.
Brooks, K. R., & Kemp, R. I. (2007). Sensitivity to feature displacement in familiar and unfamiliar faces: Beyond the internal/external feature distinction. Perception, 36(11), 1646–1659. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5675.
Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339.
Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207.
Burton, A. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800125.
Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 286–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.286.
Campbell, R. (1999). When does the inner-face advantage in familiar face recognition arise and why? Visual Cognition, 6(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756807.
Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2002). Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure. Perception, 31(8), 985–994. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3335.
Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2004). Matching as an index of face familiarity. Visual Cognition, 11(7), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000021.
Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., & Davies, G. M. (1979). Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: Some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception, 8(4), 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1068/p080431.
Frowd, C., Bruce, V., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P. (2007). The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. British Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X104481.
Goffaux, V., & Rossion, B. (2006). Faces are "spatial" - holistic face perception is supported by low spatial frequencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 1023–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1023.
Haig, N. D. (1984). The effect of feature displacement on face recognition. Perception, 13(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1068/p130505n.
Hancock, P. J., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9.
Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O.
Kemp, R. I., Caon, A., Howard, M., & Brooks, K. R. (2016). Improving unfamiliar face matching by masking the external facial features. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3239.
Kramer, R. S., Jenkins, R., Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Natural variability is essential to learning new faces. Visual Cognition, 25(4–6), 470–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1242522.
Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces - KDEF, CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience. Karolinska Institutet: Psychology section. isbn: 91-630-7164-9.
Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.
Macmillan, N. A., & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185.
Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 865–876. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433.
Menon, N., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2015). Variation in photos of the same face drives improvements in identity verification. Perception, 44(11), 1332–1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615599902.
Murphy, J., Ipser, A., Gaigg, S. B., & Cook, R. (2015). Exemplar variance supports robust learning of facial identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 577–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000049.
O'Donnell, C., & Bruce, V. (2001). Familiarisation with faces selectively enhances sensitivity to changes made to the eyes. Perception, 30(6), 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3027.
Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1068/p170043.
Ritchie, K. L., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Learning faces from variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 897–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1136656.
Rossion, B. (2013). The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception. Visual Cognition, 21, 139–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.772929.
Sadr, J., Jarudi, I., & Sinha, P. (2003). The role of eyebrows in face recognition. Perception, 32(3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5027.
Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01895.x.
Tanaka, J. W., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211301.
Tanner, W. P., Jr., & Swets, J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological Review, 61(6), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058700.
Towler, A., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2014). Evaluating training methods for facial image comparison: The face shape strategy does not work. Perception, 43(2–3), 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7676.
White, D., Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Kemp, R. I. (2014a). Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000009.
White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., Matheson, M., & Burton, A. M. (2014b). Passport officers’ errors in face matching. PLoS One, 9(8), e103510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103510.
White, D., Dunn, J. D., Schmid, A. C., & Kemp, R. I. (2015). Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software. PLoS One, 10(10), e0139827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139827.
Young, A. W., Hay, D. C., McWeeny, K. H., Flude, B. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1985). Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features. Perception, 14(6), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1068/p140737.
Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160747n.
Funding
This study was funded by Santander/Universidad Complutense de Madrid (grant number PR26/16–20330).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in the present study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Committee from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
García-Zurdo, R., Frowd, C.D. & Manzanero, A.L. Effects of facial periphery on unfamiliar face recognition. Curr Psychol 39, 1767–1773 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9863-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9863-1