versus point-light faces: movement matching is better ... · avatars versus point-light faces:...
TRANSCRIPT
Avatars versus point-light faces: Movement matching is better without a faceRachel J. Bennetts1, Darren Burke2, Kevin Brooks3, Jeesun Kim1, Simon Lucey4, Jason Saragih4 & Rachel A. Robbins1
1 University of Western Sydney 2 Newcastle University 3Macquarie University 4CSIROEmail: [email protected]
Background• Characteristic facial movements can be used as
an alternative pathway to recognise individuals1
• Familiar faces are generally easier to match than unfamiliar faces2 - but few studies have tested this with moving faces
• To examine movement-based face recognition, it is important to reduce static facial information3
• It is unclear which is better at reducing static cues: facial point-light-displays (PLDs) or shape normalised avatars (but see 4)
1. Can movement act as cue to identity when static facial information is degraded? (Moving vs Static clips)
• Is performance affected by the image manipulation used? (PLD vs avatar)
2. Does familiarity improve movement-based face matching? (Familiar vs Unfamiliar)
3. Do any of these effects change when participants have a non-degraded image to compare to? (Experiment 1 vs Experiment 2)
Questions
References
Results
Conclusions
• 2 s clips of 6 familiar (famous) and 6 unfamiliar faces, converted to PLDs and avatars. Sequential same/different task, within subjects
• 2 Familiar/Unfamiliar) x 2 (PLD/Avatar) x 2(Dynamic to Dynamic (MOVING)/Static to Static (STATIC)) (Dynamic/Static and Static/Dynamic conditions were also run, but are not shown)
Experiment 1: Matching PLD to PLD and avatar to avatar (N=16 undergrads)
Experiment 2: Matching Video to PLD and Video to avatar (N=33 undergrads)
Methods
MOVING STATIC MOVING STATIC
Experiment 1
1. It is possible to match faces based on movement alone• But this depends heavily on stimulus and task• Participants are more accurate when matching PLDs than avatars
2. Familiar faces are matched more accurately than unfamiliar faces• Even when participants do not know the face is familiar
3. Participants are less accurate matching a degraded image to a non-degraded video than matching two degraded videos
• Changing the format within trials eliminates the movement advantage
1. O’Toole, A. J., Roark, D. A., & Abdi, H. (2002). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 261-266.2. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330-337. 3. Knight, B., & Johnston, A. (1997). Visual Cognition, 4, 265-273.4. Hill, H., Jinno, Y., & Johnston, A. (2003). Perception, 32, 561-566.
Experiment 2
MOVING STATIC MOVING STATIC
• Familiar > Unfamiliar • Expt 1: F(1,15) = 17.46, p = .001, eta2 = .538• Expt 2: F(1,32) = 6.33, p = .017, eta2 = .165
•Dynamic > Static…sometimes• Expt 1: Dynamic > Static, p = .009• Expt 2: Dynamic = Static, p = 1
•PLD > Avatar• Expt 1: F(1,15) = 8.56, p = .01, eta2 = .363• Expt 2: F(1,32) = 3.98, p = .054, eta2 = .111
•Some interactions• Expt 1: Manipulation x Movement, p = .013• Expt 2: Manipulation x Familiarity, p = .037
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.
Copyri
ght p
rotec
ted. F
1000
Pos
ters.