2017
DOI: 10.1177/0963721416688114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognizing Faces

Abstract: The idea that most of us are good at recognising faces permeates everyday thinking and is widely used in the research literature. However, it is only a correct characterisation of familiar face recognition; the perception and recognition of unfamiliar faces can be surprisingly error-prone. We show how neglect of the important property of image variability has generated some misleading conclusions, and how studies that use and explore image variability can correct these and lead to substantial theoretical advan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
115
1
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
7
115
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, most traditional face recognition tasks use tightly controlled facial images that have been stripped of external features that could cue recognition (e.g., Bate, Haslam, Tree, & Hodgson, ; Duchaine & Nakayama, ; McKone et al, ). However, some authors suggest that this adjustment reduces ecological validity by failing to replicate the immense variability that typically occurs between different images of the same face in everyday life (Young & Burton, , ). In fact, the matching of two unfamiliar faces of the same identity is a notoriously difficult task (e.g., Jenkins, White, Van Montford, & Burton, ; Young & Burton, , ), even when external features are present and the two images have been collected on the same day (e.g., Bruce et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, most traditional face recognition tasks use tightly controlled facial images that have been stripped of external features that could cue recognition (e.g., Bate, Haslam, Tree, & Hodgson, ; Duchaine & Nakayama, ; McKone et al, ). However, some authors suggest that this adjustment reduces ecological validity by failing to replicate the immense variability that typically occurs between different images of the same face in everyday life (Young & Burton, , ). In fact, the matching of two unfamiliar faces of the same identity is a notoriously difficult task (e.g., Jenkins, White, Van Montford, & Burton, ; Young & Burton, , ), even when external features are present and the two images have been collected on the same day (e.g., Bruce et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The task to recognize similar faces is a computational challenge. It is evident that humans have very strong face recognition abilities and these abilities are superior to known faces but ability to recognize the unfamiliar faces are error-prone [139]. This distinction of face recognition in human lead towards the finding that face recognition depends on different set of facial features for familiar and unfamiliar faces.…”
Section: Face Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People can detect with high accuracy minute alterations to the facial configurations of famous (Ge, Luo, Nishimura, & Lee, 2003) or personally familiar faces (Brédart & Devue, 2006;Devue et al, 2007). But on the other hand, we can fail spectacularly to recognise faces of people we have just recently met, or even to match two views of the same unfamiliar individual Young & Burton, 2017; for reviews on the differences between familiar and unfamiliar face processing see Freiwald, Yovel, & Duchaine, 2016;Johnston & Edmonds, 2009;Natu & O'Toole, 2011).…”
Section: New Insights On Real-world Human Face Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, they do not capture the rich context in which faces actually become familiar (Burke, Taubert, & Higman, 2007;Burton, 2013;Young & Burton, 2017), and they do not typically track changes in familiarity over the extended time course that may be required to produce robust representations. Furthermore, neither approach seriously taxes the abilities of those with superior recognition skills who tend to perform at ceiling on these tests, leaving their limits and the claim that they do not forget faces (see Russell et al, 2009) untested.…”
Section: New Insights On Real-world Human Face Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%