Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 602–612 | Cite as

Effects of high-pass and low-pass spatial filtering on face identification

  • Nicholas P. Costen
  • Denis M. Parker
  • Ian Craw
Article
  • 1.1k Downloads

Abstract

If face images are degraded by block averaging, there is a nonlinear decline in recognition accuracy as block size increases, suggesting that identification requires a critical minimum range of object spatial frequencies. The identification of faces was measured with equivalent Fourier low-pass filtering and block averaging preserving the same information and with high-pass transformations. In Experiment 1, accuracy declined and response time increased in a significant nonlinear manner in all cases as the spatial-frequency range was reduced. However, it did so at a faster rate for the quantized and high-passed images. A second experiment controlled for the differences in the contrast of the high-pass faces and found a reduced but significant and nonlinear decline in performance as the spatial-frequency range was reduced. These data suggest that face identification is preferentially supported by a band of spatial frequencies of approximately 8-16 cycles per face; contrast or line-based explanations were found to be inadequate. The data are discussed in terms of current models of face identification.

References

  1. Bachmann, T. (1991). Identification of spatially quantised tachistoscopic images of faces: How many pixels does it take to carry identity?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,3, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., &Dench, N. (1994). What’s distinctive about a distinctive face?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 119–141.Google Scholar
  4. Bruce, V., Coombes, A., &Richards, R. (1993). Describing the shape of faces using surface primitives.Image & Vision Computing,11, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruyer, R. (1988). Some masked inconstancies about constancy.Brain & Cognition,7, 374–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, F. W., &Green, D. C. (1965). Optical and retinal factors affecting visual acuity.Journal of Physiology,181, 576–593.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Costen, N. P., Parker, D. M., &Craw, I. (1994). Spatial content and spatial quantisation effects in face recognition.Perception,23, 129–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, R. E. (1967).Fourier series: A modern introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorentini, A., Maffei, L., &Sandini, G. (1983). The role of high spatial frequencies in face perception.Perception,12, 195–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Harmon, L. D. (1973). The recognition of faces.Scientific American,229(5), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harmon, L. D., &Julesz, B. (1973, June 15). Masking in visual recognition: Effects of two-dimensional noise.Science,180, 1194–1197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, A., Morrone, M. C., &Burr, D. C. (1986). Recognition of positive and negative bandpass-filtered images.Perception,15, 595–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hummel, J. E., &Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition.Psychological Review,99, 480–517.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Keenan, P. A., Witman, R., &Pepe, J. (1989). Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of high and low spatial frequencies: A facial recognition task.Brain & Cognition,11, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keenan, P. A., Witman, R., &Pepe, J. (1990). Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of high and low spatial frequencies: A facial recognition task erratum.Brain & Cognition,13, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landy, M. S., Cohen, Y., &Sperling, G. (1984). HIPS: Image processing under UNIX. Software and applications.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,16, 199–216.Google Scholar
  17. Michelson, A. A. (1962).Studies in optics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1927)Google Scholar
  18. Morrone, M. C., Burr, D. C., &Ross, J. (1983). Added noise restores recognizability of coarse quantized images.Nature,305, 226–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Moscovitch, M. (1988). Further analyses of masking functions in laterality studies of face-perception.Brain & Cognition,7, 377–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moscovitch, M., &Radzins, M. (1987). Backward masking of lateralized faces by noise, pattern, and spatial frequency.Brain & Cognition,6, 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moulden, B., Kingdom, F., &Gatley, L. F. (1990). The standard deviation of luminance as a metric for contrast in random-dot images.Perception,19, 79–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Valentin, D. (1993). Low-dimensional representation of faces in higher dimensions of the face space.Journal of the Optical Society of America,10, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect.Memory & Cognition,22, 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parker, D. M. (1980). Simple reaction times to the onset, offset, and contrast reversal of sinusoidal grating stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schuchard, R. A., &Rubin, G. S. (1989). Face identification of bandpass filtered faces by low vision observers [Abstract].Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,30(3, Suppl.), 396.Google Scholar
  26. Sergent, J. (1986). Microgenesis of face perception. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.),Aspects of face processing (pp. 17–73). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  27. Shepherd, J. W. (1986). An interactive computer system for retrieving faces. In H.D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A.Young (Eds.),Aspects of face processing (pp. 398–409). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  28. Tieger, T., &Ganz, L. (1979). Recognition of faces in the presence of two-dimensional sinusoidal masks.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition.Cognition,32, 193–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas P. Costen
    • 1
  • Denis M. Parker
    • 1
  • Ian Craw
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenScotland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowScotland
  3. 3.ATR Human Information Processing Research LaboratoriesKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations