Research investigating the effect of lighting and viewpoint changes on unfamiliar and newly learnt faces has revealed that such recognition is highly image dependent and that changes in either of these leads to poor recognition accuracy. Three experiments are reported to extend these findings by examining the effect of apparent age on the recognition of newly learnt faces. Experiment 1 investigated the ability to generalize to novel ages of a face after learning a single image. It was found that recognition was best for the learnt image with performance falling the greater the dissimilarity between the study and test images. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether learning two images aids subsequent recognition of a novel image. The results indicated that interpolation between two studied images (Experiment 2) provided some additional benefit over learning a single view, but that this did not extend to extrapolation (Experiment 3). The results from all studies suggest that recognition was driven primarily by pictorial codes and that the recognition of faces learnt from a limited number of sources operates on stored images of faces as opposed to more abstract, structural, representations.
BakemanR. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. doi:10.3758/BF03192707
2.
BindemannM., AvetisyanM., & BlackwellK. A. (2010). Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(4), 378–386. doi:10.1037/a0021893
3.
BindemannM., & SandfordA. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40(5), 625–627. doi:10.1068/p7008
4.
BruceV. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105–116.
BruceV., & YoungA. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.
7.
BruckM., CavanaghP., & CeciS. J. (1991). Fortysomething: Recognizing faces at ones 25th reunion. Memory & Cognition, 19(3), 221–228. doi:10.3758/BF03211146
8.
BulthoffH. H., & EdelmanS. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(1), 60–64. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.1.60
9.
BurtonA. M., WhiteD., & McNeillA. (2010). The glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 286–291. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.1.286
10.
CabezaR., BruceV., KatoT., & OdaM. (1999). The prototype effect in face recognition: Extension and limits. Memory & Cognition, 27(1), 139–151. doi:10.3758/BF03201220
11.
CalderA. J., YoungA. W., PerrettD. I., EtcoffN. L., & RowlandD. (1996). Categorical perception of morphed facial expressions. Visual Cognition, 3(2), 81–118. doi:10.1080/713756735
12.
CampanellaS., ChrysochoosA., & BruyerR. (2001). Categorical perception of facial gender information: Behavioural evidence and the face-space metaphor. Visual Cognition, 8(2), 237–262.
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to loftus and masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.
15.
HillH., SchynsP. G., & AkamatsuS. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition, 62(2), 201–222. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00785-8
16.
HoleG. J., GeorgeP. A., EavesK., & RasekA. (2002). Effects of geometric distortions on face-recognition performance. Perception, 31(10), 1221–1240. doi:10.1068/p3252
17.
JenkinsR., WhiteD., Van MontfortX., & BurtonA. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121(3), 313–323. doi:10.1016/J.Cognition.2011.08.001
18.
JohnstonR. A., & EdmondsA. J. (2009). Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review. Memory, 17(5), 577–596. doi:10.1080/09658210902976969
19.
KempR., TowellN., & PikeG. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 211–222.
20.
KrouseF. L. (1981). Effects of pose, pose change, and delay on face recognition performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 651–654. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.5.651
21.
LevinD. T., & AngeloneB. L. (2002). Categorical perception of race. Perception, 31(5), 567–578. doi:10.1068/p3315
22.
LongmoreC. A., LiuC. H., & YoungA. W. (2008). Learning faces from photographs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 77–100. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.77
23.
MarrD., & NishiharaH. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shape. Philosopghical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 200, 269–294. doi:10.1098/rspb.1978.0020
24.
MenonN., WhiteD., & KempR. I. (2015). Identity-level representations affect unfamiliar face matching performance in sequential but not simultaneous tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1777–1793. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.990468
25.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
PattersonK. E., & BaddeleyA. D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(4), 406–417. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.3.4.406
28.
TarrM. J., & BulthoffH. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67(1-2), 1–20. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00026-2
29.
UllmanS., & BasriR. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 992–1006.
30.
WallravenC., SchwaningerA., SchuhmacherS., & BulthoffH. H. (2002). View-based recognition of faces in man and machine: Re-visiting inter-extra-ortho. Biologically Motivated Computer Vision, Proceedings, 2525, 651–660. WOS:000181471800065.
31.
WellsG. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification?. American Psychologist, 48(5), 553–571. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.48.5.553
32.
WhiteD., DunnJ. D., SchmidA. C., & KempR. I. (2015). Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software. Plos One, 10(10), e0139827. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139827
33.
WhiteD., KempR. I., JenkinsR., MathesonM., & BurtonA. M. (2014). Passport officers’ errors in face matching. Plos One, 9(8), e103510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103510
