Cargando…

View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch

It can be difficult to recognise new instances of an unfamiliar face. Recognition errors in this particular situation appear to be viewpoint dependent with error rates increasing with the angular distance between the face views. Studies using front views for comparison have shown that recognising fa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Favelle, Simone, Palmisano, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6310264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30592761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209927
_version_ 1783383406981152768
author Favelle, Simone
Palmisano, Stephen
author_facet Favelle, Simone
Palmisano, Stephen
author_sort Favelle, Simone
collection PubMed
description It can be difficult to recognise new instances of an unfamiliar face. Recognition errors in this particular situation appear to be viewpoint dependent with error rates increasing with the angular distance between the face views. Studies using front views for comparison have shown that recognising faces rotated in yaw can be difficult and that recognition of faces rotated in pitch is more challenging still. Here we investigate the extent to which viewpoint dependent face recognition depends on the comparison view. Participants were assigned to one of four different comparison view groups: front, ¾ yaw (right), ¾ pitch-up (above) or ¾ pitch-down (below). On each trial, participants matched their particular comparison view to a range of yaw or pitch rotated test views. Results showed that groups with a front or ¾ yaw comparison view had superior overall performance and more successful generalisation to a broader range of both pitch and yaw test views compared to groups with pitch-up or pitch-down comparison views, both of which had a very restricted generalisation range. Regression analyses revealed the importance of image similarity between views for generalisation, with a lesser role for 3D face depth. These findings are consistent with a view interpolation solution to view generalisation of face recognition, with front and ¾ yaw views being most informative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6310264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63102642019-01-08 View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch Favelle, Simone Palmisano, Stephen PLoS One Research Article It can be difficult to recognise new instances of an unfamiliar face. Recognition errors in this particular situation appear to be viewpoint dependent with error rates increasing with the angular distance between the face views. Studies using front views for comparison have shown that recognising faces rotated in yaw can be difficult and that recognition of faces rotated in pitch is more challenging still. Here we investigate the extent to which viewpoint dependent face recognition depends on the comparison view. Participants were assigned to one of four different comparison view groups: front, ¾ yaw (right), ¾ pitch-up (above) or ¾ pitch-down (below). On each trial, participants matched their particular comparison view to a range of yaw or pitch rotated test views. Results showed that groups with a front or ¾ yaw comparison view had superior overall performance and more successful generalisation to a broader range of both pitch and yaw test views compared to groups with pitch-up or pitch-down comparison views, both of which had a very restricted generalisation range. Regression analyses revealed the importance of image similarity between views for generalisation, with a lesser role for 3D face depth. These findings are consistent with a view interpolation solution to view generalisation of face recognition, with front and ¾ yaw views being most informative. Public Library of Science 2018-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6310264/ /pubmed/30592761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209927 Text en © 2018 Favelle, Palmisano http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Favelle, Simone
Palmisano, Stephen
View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title_full View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title_fullStr View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title_full_unstemmed View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title_short View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
title_sort view specific generalisation effects in face recognition: front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6310264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30592761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209927
work_keys_str_mv AT favellesimone viewspecificgeneralisationeffectsinfacerecognitionfrontandyawcomparisonviewsarebetterthanpitch
AT palmisanostephen viewspecificgeneralisationeffectsinfacerecognitionfrontandyawcomparisonviewsarebetterthanpitch