Given the apparent equivalence of norm and exemplar models, we propose a more abstract conceptualisation here with the aim of not invoking either type. Clearly, under such a generic "face space" account, multi-frame caricaturing progressively increases the level of distinctiveness starting from a location (an anti-caricature) close to the reference (norm) face used for caricaturing and along a trajectory (vector) that passes through a representation of the composite itself (veridical) and outwards with increasing positive caricature. The four experiments presented here establish which region or regions along this trajectory are responsible for the multi-frame caricature advantage. It is perhaps worth emphasising a divergence from the face-recognition literature. As mentioned above, while positive caricature facilitates naming of line drawings, no such effect exists for positive caricature of photographic stimuli, except when recognition is rendered more difficult (e.g. under image degradation, brief presentation). On the other hand, composites are an imperfect representation and are rarely (if ever) recognised with perfect accuracy (e.g. Frowd et al., 2005b). It is for this reason that there is scope for a recognition benefit for composites presented at multiple levels of caricature. Our point of departure is to explore identification of composites over separate positive and negative caricature ranges (Experiments 1 and 2). It is found that the positive-caricature range is largely responsible for the multi-frame naming advantage. Further evidence for the contribution of this caricature range was sought in Experiments 3 and 4, as well as (1) investigating the level of exaggeration at which recognition tends to occur, (2) whether the direction in which frames are presented (forward, reverse, random) is important, and (3) whether any benefit is conferred from sequence repetition. Experiment 1: Effectiveness of negative and positive caricature sub-ranges
provide evidence that this police method is likely to be appropriate, allowing people to try to name the original composite before seeing it move. Therefore, full-range animated caricature appears to be the best format, and so police should continue to use it. References Allen, H., Brady, N., & Tredoux, C. (2009). Perception of ‘best likeness’ to highly familiar faces of self and friend. Perception, 38, 1821 – 1830. doi:10.1068/p6424 Benson, P.J., & Perrett, D.I. (1991). Perception and recognition of photographic quality caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 105-135. Benson, P.J., & Perrett, D.I. (1994). Visual processing of facial distinctiveness. Perception, 23, 75-93. Brace, N., Pike, G., & Kemp, R. (2000). Investigating E-FIT using famous faces. In A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska & J. Wojcikiewicz (Eds.). Forensic Psychology and Law (pp. 272-276). Krakow: Institute of Forensic Research Publishers. Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105-116. Bruce, V., Ness, H., Hancock, P.J.B., Newman, C., & Rarity, J. (2002). Four heads are better than one. Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 894-902.
Burton, A.M., Jenkins, R. & Schweinberger, S.R. (2011). Mental representations of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 943–958. Calder, A.J., Young, A.W., Benson, P.J., & Perrett, D.I. (1996). Self priming from distinctive and caricatured faces. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 141-162. Davies, G.M., van der Willik, P., & Morrison, L.J. (2000). Facial Composite Production: A Comparison of Mechanical and Computer-Driven Systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1, 119-124. Frowd, C.D., Bruce, V., Ness, H., Bowie, L., Thomson-Bogner, C., Paterson, J., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P.J.B. (2007a). Parallel approaches to composite production. Ergonomics, 50, 562-585. Frowd, C.D., Bruce, V., Ross, D., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P.J.B. (2007b). An application of caricature: how to improve the recognition of facial composites. Visual Cognition, 15, 1-31. DOI: 10.1080/13506280601058951. Frowd, C.D., Carson, D., Ness, H., McQuiston, D., Richardson, J., Baldwin, H., & Hancock, P.J.B. (2005a). Contemporary Composite Techniques: the impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 10, 63-81. Frowd, C.D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., McLanaghan, S., & Hancock, P.J.B. (2005b). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 33-52.
Koehn, C.E., & Fisher, R.P. (1997). Constructing facial composites with the Mac-a-Mug Pro system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 215-224. Lee, K.L., Byatt, G., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Caricature effects, distinctiveness and identification: testing the face-space framework. Psychological Science, 11, 379-385. Lee, K.L., & Perrett, D.I. (1997). Presentation-time measures of the effect of manipulations in colour space on discrimination of famous faces. Perception. 26, Lee, K.J., & Perrett, D.I. (2000). Manipulation of colour and shape information and its consequence upon recognition and best-likeness judgments. Perception, 29, 1291 – 1312. Lewis, M.B. (2004). Face-Space-R: Towards a unified account of face recognition. Visual Cognition, 11, 29-69. Meng, X.I., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1992). Comparing Correlated Correlation Coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175. Rhodes, G. (1996). Superportraits: caricatures and recognition. Psychology Press: Hove, UK. Rhodes, G., Carey, S., Byatt, G., & Proffitt, F. (1998). Coding spatial variations in faces and simple shapes: a test of two models. Vision Research, 38, 2307–2321.
Rhodes, G. & Leopold, D. A. (2011). Adaptive norm-based coding of face identity. In A. W. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. H. Johnston, & J. V. Haxby (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1994). Understanding face recognition: Caricature effects, inversion and the homogeneity problem. Visual Cognition, 1, 275-311. Ross, D., Deroche, M., & Palmeri, T. (2011). Face adaptation: Comparing norm-based and exemplar-based models. Journal of Vision, 11, doi: 10.1167/11.11.586. Ross, D.A., Hancock, P.J.B., & Lewis, M.B. (2010). Changing faces: direction is important. Visual Cognition. 18, 67-81. Tanaka, J.W. & Simon, V.B. (1996). Caricature recognition in a neural network. Visual Cognition, 3, 305-324. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161-204. Valentine, T., Davis, J. P., Thorner, K., Solomon, C., & Gibson, S. (2010). Evolving and combining facial composites: Between-witness and within-witness morphs compared. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 72 – 86. Yambor, B. D., Draper, B.A., & Beveridge R. (2002). Analyzing PCA-based Face Recognition Algorithms: Eigenvector Selection and Distance Measures. In H.