How Different is Different? Criterion and Sensitivity in Face-Space
Overview
Affiliations
Not all detectable differences between face images correspond to a change in identity. Here we measure both sensitivity to change and the criterion difference that is perceived as a change in identity. Both measures are used to test between possible similarity metrics. Using a same/different task and the method of constant stimuli criterion is specified as the 50% "different" point (P50) and sensitivity as the difference limen (DL). Stimuli and differences are defined within a "face-space" based on principal components analysis of measured differences in three-dimensional shape. In Experiment 1 we varied views available. Criterion (P50) was lowest for identical full-face view comparisons that can be based on image differences. When comparing across views P50, was the same for a static 45° change as for multiple animated views, although sensitivity (DL) was higher for the animated case, where it was as high as for identical views. Experiments 2 and 3 tested possible similarity metrics. Experiment 2 contrasted Euclidean and Mahalanobis distance by setting PC1 or PC2 to zero. DL did not differ between conditions consistent with Mahalanobis. P50 was lower when PC2 changed emphasizing that perceived changes in identity are not determined by the magnitude of Euclidean physical differences. Experiment 3 contrasted a distance with an angle based similarity measure. We varied the distinctiveness of the faces being compared by varying distance from the origin, a manipulation that affects distances but not angles between faces. Angular P50 and DL were both constant for faces from 1 to 2 SD from the mean, consistent with an angular measure. We conclude that both criterion and sensitivity need to be considered and that an angular similarity metric based on standardized PC values provides the best metric for specifying what physical differences will be perceived to change in identity.
Yuan M, Goovaerts S, Lee M, Devine J, Richmond S, Walsh S Brief Bioinform. 2025; 26(2).
PMID: 40062617 PMC: 11891655. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbaf090.
Vanneste M, Hoskens H, Goovaerts S, Matthews H, Devine J, Aponte J Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):10458.
PMID: 39622794 PMC: 11612227. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-54839-1.
Mapping genes for human face shape: Exploration of univariate phenotyping strategies.
Yuan M, Goovaerts S, Vanneste M, Matthews H, Hoskens H, Richmond S PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(12):e1012617.
PMID: 39621772 PMC: 11661606. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012617.
Stephan C, Healy S, Bultitude H, Glen C Int J Legal Med. 2022; 136(6):1697-1716.
PMID: 35999320 PMC: 9576648. DOI: 10.1007/s00414-022-02871-5.
3D facial phenotyping by biometric sibling matching used in contemporary genomic methodologies.
Hoskens H, Liu D, Naqvi S, Lee M, Eller R, Indencleef K PLoS Genet. 2021; 17(5):e1009528.
PMID: 33983923 PMC: 8118281. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009528.