Reassessing the 3/4 view effect in face recognition

This source preferred by Changhong Liu

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Liu, C.H. and Chaudhuri, A.

Journal: Cognition

Volume: 83

Issue: 1

Pages: 31-48

ISSN: 0010-0277

It is generally accepted that unfamiliar faces are better recognized if presented in 3/4 view. A common interpretation of this result is that the 3/4 view represents a canonical view for faces. This article presents a critical review of this claim. Two kinds of advantage, in which a 3/4 view either generalizes better to a different view or produces better recognition in the same view, are discussed. Our analysis of the literature shows that the first effect almost invariably depended on different amounts of angular rotation that was present between learning and test views. The advantage usually vanished when angular rotation was equalized between conditions. Reports in favor of the second effect are scant and can be countered by studies reporting negative findings. To clarify this ambiguity, we conducted a recognition experiment. Subjects were trained and tested on the same three views (full-face, 3/4 and profile). The results showed no difference between the three view conditions. Our analysis of the literature, along with the new results, shows that the evidence for a 3/4 view advantage in both categories is weak at best. We suggest that a better predictor of performance for recognition in different views is the angular difference between learning and test views. For recognition in the same view, there may be a wide range of views whose effectiveness is comparable to the 3/4 view.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Liu, C.H. and Chaudhuri, A.

Journal: Cognition

Volume: 83

Issue: 1

Pages: 31-48

ISSN: 0010-0277

DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00164-0

It is generally accepted that unfamiliar faces are better recognized if presented in 3/4 view. A common interpretation of this result is that the 3/4 view represents a canonical view for faces. This article presents a critical review of this claim. Two kinds of advantage, in which a 3/4 view either generalizes better to a different view or produces better recognition in the same view, are discussed. Our analysis of the literature shows that the first effect almost invariably depended on different amounts of angular rotation that was present between learning and test views. The advantage usually vanished when angular rotation was equalized between conditions. Reports in favor of the second effect are scant and can be countered by studies reporting negative findings. To clarify this ambiguity, we conducted a recognition experiment. Subjects were trained and tested on the same three views (full-face, 3/4 and profile). The results showed no difference between the three view conditions. Our analysis of the literature, along with the new results, shows that the evidence for a 3/4 view advantage in both categories is weak at best. We suggest that a better predictor of performance for recognition in different views is the angular difference between learning and test views. For recognition in the same view, there may be a wide range of views whose effectiveness is comparable to the 3/4 view. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Liu, C.H. and Chaudhuri, A.

Journal: COGNITION

Volume: 83

Issue: 1

Pages: 31-48

ISSN: 0010-0277

DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00164-0

This data was imported from Europe PubMed Central:

Authors: Liu, C.H. and Chaudhuri, A.

Journal: Cognition

Volume: 83

Issue: 1

Pages: 31-48

eISSN: 1873-7838

ISSN: 0010-0277

It is generally accepted that unfamiliar faces are better recognized if presented in 3/4 view. A common interpretation of this result is that the 3/4 view represents a canonical view for faces. This article presents a critical review of this claim. Two kinds of advantage, in which a 3/4 view either generalizes better to a different view or produces better recognition in the same view, are discussed. Our analysis of the literature shows that the first effect almost invariably depended on different amounts of angular rotation that was present between learning and test views. The advantage usually vanished when angular rotation was equalized between conditions. Reports in favor of the second effect are scant and can be countered by studies reporting negative findings. To clarify this ambiguity, we conducted a recognition experiment. Subjects were trained and tested on the same three views (full-face, 3/4 and profile). The results showed no difference between the three view conditions. Our analysis of the literature, along with the new results, shows that the evidence for a 3/4 view advantage in both categories is weak at best. We suggest that a better predictor of performance for recognition in different views is the angular difference between learning and test views. For recognition in the same view, there may be a wide range of views whose effectiveness is comparable to the 3/4 view.

The data on this page was last updated at 04:45 on January 16, 2018.