Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Face Identification Proficiency Test Designed Using Item Response Theory

Published 22 Jun 2021 in cs.CV and stat.ME | (2106.15323v3)

Abstract: Measures of face-identification proficiency are essential to ensure accurate and consistent performance by professional forensic face examiners and others who perform face-identification tasks in applied scenarios. Current proficiency tests rely on static sets of stimulus items, and so, cannot be administered validly to the same individual multiple times. To create a proficiency test, a large number of items of "known" difficulty must be assembled. Multiple tests of equal difficulty can be constructed then using subsets of items. We introduce the Triad Identity Matching (TIM) test and evaluate it using Item Response Theory (IRT). Participants view face-image "triads" (N=225) (two images of one identity, one image of a different identity) and select the different identity. In Experiment 1, university students (N=197) showed wide-ranging accuracy on the TIM test, and IRT modeling demonstrated that the TIM items span various difficulty levels. In Experiment 2, we used IRT-based item metrics to partition the test into subsets of specific difficulties. Simulations showed that subsets of the TIM items yielded reliable estimates of subject ability. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we found that the student-derived IRT model reliably evaluated the ability of non-student participants and that ability generalized across different test sessions. In Experiment 3c, we show that TIM test performance correlates with other common face-recognition tests. In summary, the TIM test provides a starting point for developing a framework that is flexible and calibrated to measure proficiency across various ability levels (e.g., professionals or populations with face-processing deficits).

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? PloS one, 14(2):e0211037, 2019.
  2. Evaluating training methods for facial image comparison: The face shape strategy does not work. Perception, 43(2-3):214–218, 2014.
  3. Diagnostic feature training improves face matching accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2021.
  4. Face recognition assessments used in the study of super-recognisers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04739, 2017.
  5. Super-recognizers: From the lab to the world and back again. British Journal of Psychology, 110(3):461–479, 2019.
  6. We need to talk about super-recognizers invited commentary on: Ramon, M., Bobak, A.K., & White, D. Super-recognizers: From the lab to the world and back again. British Journal of Psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 110(3):492–494, 2019.
  7. Understanding the nature of face processing impairment in autism: insights from behavioral and electrophysiological studies. Developmental neuropsychology, 27(3):403–424, 2005.
  8. Social cognition in schizophrenia: a review of face processing. British Medical Bulletin, 88(1):43–58, 2008.
  9. Learning the moves: The effect of familiarity and facial motion on person recognition across large changes in viewing format. Perception, 35(6):761–773, 2006.
  10. The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1):286–291, 2010.
  11. Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1814):20151292, 2015.
  12. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Face Challenge Problem. Image and Vision Computing, 30(3):177–185, 2012.
  13. NA Macmillan and CD Creelman. Detection Theory, 2nd. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 2005.
  14. Nicolaas Prins et al. Psychophysics: a practical introduction. Academic Press, 2016.
  15. Person recognition: Qualitative differences in how forensic face examiners and untrained people rely on the face versus the body for identification. Visual Cognition, 25(4-6):492–506, 2017.
  16. Face recognition accuracy of forensic examiners, superrecognizers, and face recognition algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(24):6171–6176, 2018.
  17. Frederic M Lord. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge, 1980.
  18. Capturing specific abilities as a window into human individuality: The example of face recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(5-6):360–392, 2012.
  19. Item response theory analyses of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). Psychological assessment, 27(2):552, 2015.
  20. Age-related differential item functioning in tests of face and car recognition ability. Journal of vision, 18(1):2–2, 2018.
  21. A signal detection–item response theory model for evaluating neuropsychological measures. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 40(8):745–760, 2018.
  22. Dimitris Rizopoulos. ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of statistical software, 17(5):1–25, 2006.
  23. Benjamin D Wright. Solving measurement problems with the rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, pages 97–116, 1977.
  24. Rafael Jaime De Ayala. The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Publications, 2013.
  25. Deep face recognition. In British Machine Vision Association, 2015.
  26. I Qualtrics. Qualtrics. Provo, UT, USA, 2013.
  27. Jonathan W Peirce. Psychopy—psychophysics software in python. Journal of neuroscience methods, 162(1-2):8–13, 2007.
  28. R Philip Chalmers et al. mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of statistical Software, 48(6):1–29, 2012.
  29. An exposition of multivariate analysis with the singular value decomposition in R. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 72:176–189, 2014.
  30. The cambridge face memory test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4):576–585, 2006.
  31. Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16(2):252–257, 2009.
  32. Matthew C Fysh. Individual differences in the detection, matching and memory of faces. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1):1–12, 2018.
  33. Improving face identification with specialist teams. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1):1–13, 2018.
  34. Super-recognisers show an advantage for other race face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1):205–216, 2020.
  35. General and specific factors in the processing of faces. Vision research, 141:217–227, 2017.
  36. Individual differences in face identity processing. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(1):1–15, 2018.
  37. Super-recognisers in action: Evidence from face-matching and face memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1):81–91, 2016.
  38. Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 115(2):107, 1986.
  39. Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121(3):313–323, 2011.
  40. Telling faces together: Learning new faces through exposure to multiple instances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(10):2041–2050, 2015.
  41. A Birnbaum. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In M. Lord and M. R. Novick, editors, Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
Citations (5)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.