Abstract
Principal components analysis (PCA) of face images is here related to subjects’ performance on the same images. In two experiments subjects were shown a set of faces and asked to rate them for distinctiveness. They were subsequently shown a superset of faces and asked to identify those that had appeared originally. Replicating previous work, we found that hits and false positives (FPs) did not correlate: Those faces easy to identify as being “seen” were unrelated to those faces easy to reject as being “unseen.” PCA was performed on three data sets: (1) face images with eye position standardized, (2) face images morphed to a standard template to remove shape information, and (3) the shape information from faces only. Analyses based on PCA of shape-free faces gave high predictions of FPs, whereas shape information itself contributed only to hits. Furthermore, whereas FPs were generally predictable from components early in the PCA, hits appeared to be accounted for by later components. We conclude that shape and “texture” (the image-based information remaining after morphing) may be used separately by the human face processing system, and that PCA of images offers a useful tool for understanding this system.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Edelman, B., &O’Toole, A. J. (1995). More about the difference between men and women: Evidence from linear neural network and principal component approach.Perception,24, 539–562.
Bartlett, J. C., &Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces.Cognitive Psychology,25, 281–316.
Benson, P. J., &Perret, D. I. (1991). Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,3, 105–135.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., &Dench, N. (1994). What’s distinctive about a distinctive face?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 119–141.
Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., Dench, N., Hanna, E., Healey, P., Mason, O., Coombes, A., Fright, R., &Linney, A. (1993). Sex discrimination: How do we tell the difference between male and female faces?Perception,22, 131–152.
Bruce, V., Coombes, A., &Richards, R. (1993). Describing the shapes of faces using surface primitives.Image & Vision Computing,11, 353–363.
Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healy, P., &Burton, A. M. (1992). The importance of “mass” in line drawings of faces.Applied Cognitive Psychology,6, 619–628.
Bruce, V., Healy, P., Burton, M., Doyle, T., Coombes, A., &Linney, A. (1991). Recognising facial surfaces.Perception,20, 755–769.
Bruce, V., &Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.
Brunelli, R., &Poggio, T. (1993). Face recognition—Features versus templates.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,15, 1042–1052.
Burton, A. M. (1994). Learning new faces in an interactive activation and competition model.Visual Cognition,1, 313–348.
Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Dench, N. (1993). What’s the difference between men and women? Evidence from facial measurement.Perception,22, 153–176.
Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Johnston, R. A. (1990). Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model.British Journal of Psychology,81, 361–380.
Craw, I., &Cameron, P. (1991). Parameterising images for recognition and reconstruction. In P. Mowforth (Ed.),Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D., &Shepherd, J. W. (1978). Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation.Journal of Applied Psychology,63, 180–187.
Ellis, H. D. (1986). Processes underlying face recognition. In R. Bruyer (Ed.),The neuropsychology of face perception and facial expression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farah, M. J., O’Reilly, R. C., &Vecera, S. P. (1993). Dissociated overt and covert recognition as an emergent property of a lesioned neural network.Psychological Review,100, 571–588.
Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., &Bruce, V. (1995). Preprocessing images of faces: Correlations with human perceptions of distinctiveness and familiarity. InProceedings of the IEE Fifth International Conference on Image Processing and Its Application. London: IEE.
Hay, D. C., &Young, A. W. (1982). The human face. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 173–202). London: Academic Press.
Hayes, T., Morrone, M. C., &Burr, D. C. (1986). Recognition of positive and negative bandpass-filtered images.Perception,15, 595–602.
Kirby, M., &Sirovich, L. (1990). Applications of the Karhunen-Loeve procedure for the characterisation of human faces.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,12, 103–108.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 139–157.
O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Bartlett, J. C. (1991). Simulating the “other-race effect” as a problem in perceptual learning. Connection Science:Journal of Neural Computing, Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Research,3, 163–178.
O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other race effect.Memory & Cognition,22, 208–224.
Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces. First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance.Perception,17, 43–63.
Rhodes, G., Brake, S., &Atkinson, A. P. (1993). What’s lost in inverted faces?Cognition,47, 25–57.
Rhodes, G., Brennen, S., &Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces.Cognitive Psychology,19, 473–497.
Shepherd, J. (1986). An interactive computer system for retrieving faces. In H. Ellis, M. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.),Aspects of face processing (pp. 398–409). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Tanaka, J. W., &Farah, M. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A, 225–245.
Turk, M., &Pentland, A. (1991). Eigenfaces for recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 71–86.
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., &Bruce, V. (1986a). The effects of distinctiveness in recognising and classifying faces.Perception,15, 525–536.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986b). Recognising familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 300–305.
Valentine, T., &Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing: The effects of race and distinctiveness.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 671–703.
Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.
Wurtz, R. P., Vorbruggen, J. C., &von der Malsburg, C. (1990). A transputer system for the recognition of human faces by labeled graph matching. In R. Eckmiller, G. Hartmann, & G. Hauske (Eds.),Parallel processing in neural systems and computers (pp. 37–41). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Young, A. W., &Bruce, V. (1991). Perceptual categories and the computation of grandmother.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,3, 5–49.
Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., &Hay, D. C. (1987). Configural information in face perception.Perception,16, 747–759.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The manuscript was improved following comments from G. Loftus, M. Reinitz, and P. Dixon. This research was supported by an SERC grant to A.M.B., V.B., and I. Craw (No. GRH 93828).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hancock, P.J.B., Burton, A.M. & Bruce, V. Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis. Memory & Cognition 24, 26–40 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197270
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197270