MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984990345 · doi:10.1167/5.8.829

Effects of image background on spatial frequency thresholds for face recognition

2005· article· en· W1984990345 on OpenAlexaff
Charles A. Collin, Barbara O'Byrne, L. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonochromatic colorSpatial frequencyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceComputer visionFacial recognition systemFace (sociological concept)MathematicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of studies have investigated the question of which spatial frequencies, if any, are optimally useful for face recognition. To our knowledge, all of these studies have used face images with monochromatic backgrounds, usually medium-gray. A potential limitation of this methodology is that it does not accurately reflect the real-world situation to which results are to be generalized. That is, in the real world the visual system must recognize faces against a variety of backgrounds, and the spatial frequencies needed for face recognition may be different in these circumstances than when the background is homogenous. In this study, we investigated the differences in spatial frequency thresholds for face matching across three different types of backgrounds: 1) Monochromatic gray, 2) fractal noise, and 3) natural scenes. Observers were asked to find their matching threshold, using the method of adjustment, in a 4AFC match-to-sample task. That is, four faces were presented at the bottom of the screen, and a high-passed or low-passed face was presented in the middle of the screen. Observers were asked to adjust the cut-off of the spatial frequency filter to the point where they could just match the center face to one of the four comparison faces. Our results show small but consistent differences in threshold according to the type of background surrounding the face. Images with a fractal noise background elicited higher low-pass thresholds and lower high-pass thresholds than did the other two background types. There was no difference between monochromatic gray backgrounds and natural backgrounds. These data support the generalizability of results from studies using monochromatic gray backgrounds to real-world vision. However, the data also suggest that non-structured backgrounds can produce additional difficulty in recognizing spatially filtered face images. Additional data using the Method of Constant Stimuli are also being gathered.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207