EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites

Aus de_evolutionary_art_org
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche


Frowd, C.D., Hancock, P.J.B., Carson, D. (2004). EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites. ACM Transactions on Applied Psychology (TAP), 1: 1–21.




EvoFIT, a computerized facial composite system is being developed as an alternative to current systems. EvoFIT faces are initially presented to a witness with random characteristics, but through a process of selection and breeding, a composite is "evolved." Comparing composites constructed with E-FIT, a current system, a naming rate of 10% was found for EvoFIT and 17% for E-FIT. Analysis revealed that target age was limiting factor for EvoFIT and a second study with age-appropriate targets visible during composite construction produced a naming rate similar to E-FIT. Two more-realistic studies were conducted that involved young target faces and two current systems (E-FIT and PROfit). Composites from both of these experiments were poorly named but a significant benefit emerged for EvoFIT.

Extended Abstract


Used References

Acpo(S). 2000. National Working Practices in Facial Imaging. Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) Working Group.

Bennett, P. 2000. The use of multiple composites in suspect identification. In Proceedings of the 3rd UK National Conference on Cranio-Facial Identification, Manchester, May 2000.

Brace, N., Pike, G., and Kemp, R. 2000. Investigating E-FIT using famous faces. In Forensic Psychology and Law, A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, and J. Wojcikiewicz, Eds. Institute of Forensic Research Publishers, Krakow.

Brown, G. D. A., Hulme, C., Hyland, P. D., and Mitchell, I. J. 1994. Cell suicide in the developing nervous systems: a functional neural network model. Cogn. Brain Res. 2, 71--75.

Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healey, P., and Burton, M. 1992. The importance of "mass" in line-drawings of faces. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 6, 619--628.

Bruce, V., Healey, P., Burton, A. M., Doyle, T., Coombes, A., and Linney, A. 1991. Recognising facial surfaces. Perception 20, 755--769.

Bruce, V., Ness, H., Hancock, P. J. B., Newman, C., and Rarity, J. 2002. Four heads are better than one. Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 5, 894--902.

R. Brunelli , T. Poggio, Face Recognition: Features Versus Templates, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v.15 n.10, p.1042-1052, October 1993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/34.254061

Caldwell, C. and Johnston, V. S. 1991. Tracking a criminal suspect through "face-space" with a genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 416--421.

T. F. Cootes , K. Walker , C. J. Taylor, View-Based Active Appearance Models, Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition 2000, p.227, March 26-30, 2000 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=796201&CFID=588525319&CFTOKEN=29804931

Craw, I. and Cameron, P. 1991. Parameterising images for recognition and reconstruction. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference BMCV '91. Turing Institute Press and Springer Verlag.

Davies, G., Milne, A., and Shepherd, J. 1983. Searching for operator skills in face composite reproduction. J. Police Sci. Adm. 11, 4, 405--409.

Davies, G. M. and Oldman, H. 1999. The impact of character attribution on composite production: A real world effect? Curr. Psychol. Dev. Learn. Pers. Social 18, 1, 128--139.

Davies, G. M., van der Willik, P., and Morrison, L. J. 2000. Facial composite production: A comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 1, 119--124.

Fic. 1999. Crime Management Division: Facial Imaging Course. Scottish Police College.

Frowd, C. D. 2001. EvoFIT: A Holistic, Evolutionary Facial Imaging System. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Gibling, F. and Bennett, P. 1994. Artistic enhancement in the production of photofit likeness: An examination of its effectiveness in leading to suspect identification. Psychol. Crime Law 1, 93--100.

Green, D. L. and Geiselman, R. E. 1989. Building composite facial images: Effects of feature saliency and delay of construction. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 714--721.

Hancock, P. J. B. 2000. Evolving faces from principal components. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 32, 2, 327--333.

Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 1997. Testing principal component representations for faces. In Proceedings of 4th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, J. A. Bullinaria, D. W. Glasspool, and G. Houghton, Eds. Springer-Verlag, London, 84--97.

Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 1998. A comparison of two computer-based face recognition systems with human perceptions of faces. Vis. Res. 38, 2277--2288.

Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., and Burton, A. M. 2000. Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 9, 330--337.

Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., and Bruce, V. 1996. Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis. Mem. Cognit. 24, 26--40.

Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Pappas, C., and Thill, D. L. 1997. Identification of computer generated facial composites. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 2, 235--246.

Yann Le Cun , John S. Denker , Sara A. Solla, Optimal brain damage, Advances in neural information processing systems 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1990 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=109298&CFID=588525319&CFTOKEN=29804931

Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., and Hollander, S., 1979. Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 5, 3, 212--228.

McNeil, J. E., Wray, J. L., Hibler, N. S., Foster, W. D., Rhyne, C. E., and Thibault, R. 1987. Hypnosis and Identi-kit: A study to determine the effect of using hypnosis in conjunction with the making of identikit composites. J. Police Sci. Adm. 15, 63--67.

O'Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., Volz, H., and Salter, E. M. 1997. Three-dimensional caricatures of human heads: Distinctiveness and the perception of facial age. Perception 25, 719--732.

Rakover, S. S. and Cahlon, B. 1996. To catch a thief with a recognition test: The model and some empirical results. Cogn. Psychol. 21, 423--468.

Shapiro, P. N. and Penrod, S. D. 1986. Meta-analysis of facial identification rates. Psychol. Bull. 100, 139--156.

Sirovich, L. and Kirby, M. 1987. Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A 4, 519--524.

Troje, N. F. and Vetter, T. 1996. Representation of Human Faces. Tech. rep., Max-Planck-Institute, Tubingen, Germany.

Valentine, T. and Endo, M. 1992. Towards an exemplar model of face processing: the effects of race and distinctiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 44, 671--703.


Full Text


intern file

Sonstige Links