Facial Wipes don't Wash: Facial Image Comparison by Video Superimposition Reduces the Accuracy of Face Matching Decisions

Abstract

Facial image comparison by video superimposition Facial wipes don't wash: Facial image comparison by video superimposition reduces the accuracy of face matching decisions AbstractIn cases of disputed CCTV identification, expert testimony based on the results of analysis by facial image comparison may be presented to the Jury. However, many of the techniques lack empirical data to support their use. Using a within participants design, we compared the accuracy of face matching decisions when images were presented using a 'facial wipe' technique (where one image is superimposed on another, and the display gradually 'wipes' between the two), to decisions based on static images. Experiment 1 used high quality image pairs, Experiment 2 used disguised target images, and Experiment 3 used degraded target images. Across all three experiments, rather than optimising performance, facial wipes reduced accuracy relative to static presentations. Further, there is evidence that video wipes increase false positives, and therefore may increase the likelihood that images of two different people will be incorrectly judged to show the same individual. Facial image comparison by video superimposition

The Kent Face Matching Test

“…The GFMT has already featured in over 30 face‐matching studies to investigate how performance is impacted by factors such as time pressure (Bindemann, Fysh, Cross, & Watts, ), mismatch prevalence (Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Blackwell, ), sleep deprivation (Beattie, Walsh, McLaren, Biello, & White, ), image quality (Bindemann, Attard, Leach, & Johnston, ; Strathie & McNeill, ), and performance‐related feedback (Alenezi & Bindemann, ; White, Kemp, Jenkins, & Burton, ). Moreover, this task has been administered not only to students, but also to non‐students (Bobak, Dowsett, & Bate, ; White, Rivolta, Burton, Al‐Janabi, & Palermo, ), forensic experts (White, Phillips, Hahn, Hill, & O'Toole, ), police officers (Robertson, Noyes, Dowsett, Jenkins, & Burton, ), and passport officers (White, Kemp, Jenkins, Matheson, & Burton, ).…”

Facial Identification at a Virtual Reality Airport

“…For example, pairwise face-matching experiments have been used to assess individual differences in performance (e.g., Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012; Bobak, Dowsett, & Bate, 2016; Bobak, Hancock, & Bate, 2016; Megreya & Burton, 2006a), to compare untrained observers with passport officers (White, Kemp, Jenkins, Matheson, & Burton, 2014; Wirth & Carbon, 2017) and different groups of professionals, such as facial review staff and facial examiners (White, Dunn, Schmid, & Kemp, 2015; see also Phillips et al., 2018; White, Phillips, Hahn, Hill, & O’Toole, 2015), and to assess observers familiar and unfamiliar with the target identities (Bruce, Henderson, Newman, & Burton, 2001; Ritchie et al., 2015), as well as those with impairments in face matching (White, Rivolta, Burton, Al-Janabi, & Palermo, 2017). Similarly, such controlled laboratory experiments have been employed to study how the characteristics of stimuli affect face matching, by exploring factors such as image quality (e.g., Bindemann, Attard, Leach, & Johnston, 2013; Strathie & McNeill, 2016), the addition of paraphernalia and disguise (Henderson, Bruce, & Burton, 2001; Kramer & Ritchie, 2016; Wirth & Carbon, 2017), and variation in viewpoint (Estudillo & Bindemann, 2014), camera distance (Noyes & Jenkins, 2017), and facial appearance across photographs (e.g., Bindemann & Sandford, 2011; Megreya, Sandford, & Burton, 2013).…”

An International Survey of Face-Matching Training

“…It is very concerning indeed that half of examiner training agencies were providing instruction in the use of facial feature classification, photo anthropometry and superimposition, despite these methods being demonstrated to be unreliable in the literature (Kleinberg & Vanezis, 2007;Moreton & Morley, 2011;Ritz-Timme et al, 2011;Strathie & McNeill, 2016;Strathie et al, 2012;Towler, White, & Kemp, 2014) Methods of comparison also included the only two subtopics from the survey covered by 100% of agencies, and this was only for examiner training. These subtopics were 'instruction in the ACE-V framework' and 'instruction in morphological comparison'.…”

“…It is important to note that forensic facial examiners are not a homogenous group and significant variation in accuracy on tests exists between different examiners. There has also been heavy criticism of certain working practices used by forensic facial examiners, such as the technique of measuring facial proportions (Kleinberg & Vanezis, 2007;Moreton & Morley, 2011) and overlaying or superimposing facial images (Strathie & McNeill, 2016;Strathie, Mcneill, & White, 2012). For detailed reviews see Edmond, Biber, Kemp, & Porter, (2008); Mallett & Evison, (2013) and McNeill, Suchomska, & Strathie, (2015).…”