Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of human face matching behavior and computational image similarity measure

  • Published:
Science in China Series F: Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational similarity measures have been evaluated in a variety of ways, but few of the validated computational measures are based on a high-level, cognitive criterion of objective similarity. In this paper, we evaluate two popular objective similarity measures by comparing them with face matching performance in human observers. The results suggest that these measures are still limited in predicting human behavior, especially in rejection behavior, but objective measure taking advantage of global and local face characteristics may improve the prediction. It is also suggested that human may set different criterions for “hit” and “rejection” and this may provide implications for biologically-inspired computational systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lades M, Vorbrüggen J C, Buhmann J, et al. Distortion invariant object recognition in the dynamic link architecture. IEEE T Comput, 1993, 42(3): 300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biederman I, Kalocsai P. Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. Phil Trans R Soc B, 1997, 352: 1203–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burton A M, Miller P, Bruce V, et al. Human and automatic face recognition: A comparison across image formats. Vision Res, 2001, 41: 3185–3195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Russell R, Biederman I, Nederhouser M, et al. The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces. Vision Res, 2007, 47: 157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Steyvers M, Busey T. Predicting similarity ratings to faces using physical descriptions. In: Wenger M, Townsend J, eds. Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition: Contexts and Challenges. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000

  6. Farah M J, Wilson K D, Drain H M, et al. What is “special” about face perception? Psychol Rev, 1998, 105: 482–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rakover S S. Featural vs. configurational information in faces: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Brit J Psychol, 2002, 93(1): 1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Adini Y, Moses Y, Ullman S. Face recognition: the problem of compensating for changes in illumination direction. IEEE Trans Patt Anal Mac Intel, 1997, 19(7): 721–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu C H, Bhuiyan A -A, Ward J. Transfer between pose and illumination training in face recognition. Percept, 2007, 36(Suppl.): 148

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wang Z, Bovik A C, Sheikh H R, et al. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process, 2004, 13(4): 600–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yin L, Wei X, Sun Y, et al. A 3D facial expression database for facial behavior research. In: IEEE 7th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, Southampton, UK, April 2006. IEEE Computer Society TC PAMI, 2006. 211–216

  12. Zhu J, Vai M I, Mak P U. A new enhanced nearest feature space (ENFS) classifier for Gabor wavelets features-based face recognition. ICBA 2004. Lect Notes Comput Sci, 2004, 3072:124–131

    Google Scholar 

  13. Farell B. “Same”-“different” judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychol Bull, 1985, 98(3): 419–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bamber D. Reaction times and error rates for “same”- “different” judgments of multi-dimension stimuli. Percept Psychophys, 1969, 6: 169–174

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart N, Brown G D A. Similarity and dissimilarity as evidence in perceptual categorization. J Math Psychol, 2005, 49(5): 403–409

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychol Rev, 1977, 84: 327–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China

    WenFeng Chen & XiaoLan Fu

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK

    ChangHong Liu

  3. School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Karen Lander

Authors
  1. WenFeng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ChangHong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Lander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. XiaoLan Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to XiaoLan Fu.

Additional information

Supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2006CB303101), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 60433030, 30600182 and 30500157), and the Royal Society

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, W., Liu, C., Lander, K. et al. Comparison of human face matching behavior and computational image similarity measure. Sci. China Ser. F-Inf. Sci. 52, 316–321 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-009-0044-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-009-0044-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation