The process of facial composite production

Facial composites remain an important tool for the apprehension of suspects. While research has led to an improvement in composite quality, contemporary systems rarely produce highly identifiable renditions in realistic studies. The current work manipulated the type of interview administered, as well as the composite face first presented to witnesses during construction. In the study, witnesses received a short exposure to a target face, then 2 days later were given a Cognitive Interview, a Holistic Interview (a set of personality ratings) or no interview. They then constructed a composite with the modern PROfit system in the normal way, by first setting the feature descriptors to obtain an ‘initial’ composite, or by proceeding from the ‘default’ composite, the first face displayed when PROfit is run. Although the composites were not named spontaneously, the result of an identification task revealed an advantage for the Holistic Interview when used with an ‘initial’ composite

Varieties of biometric facial techniques for detecting offenders

Many crimes are committed where the only record of the event is in the memory of a witness or victim. Recovering a recognisable image of the offender’s face is then crucial for solving the crime. Traditionally, eyewitnesses describe the offender’s face and select individual facial features – eyes, hair, nose, etc. – to build a ‘composite’. This image is then published in the media so that someone can recognise it and phone the police with a name. Unfortunately, when tested using life-like procedures, this method rarely produces recognisable images. The current paper describes these systems for extracting such biometric information from witnesses. It also describes how useful they are and explores three such approaches for improving their effectiveness. Included are a new method to interview witnesses (a holistic-cognitive interview), a new method to present images to the public (animated composite) and a new system to construct the face (EvoFIT)

An evaluation of US systems for facial composite production

Witness and victims of serious crime are normally requested to construct a facial composite of a suspect’s face. While modern systems for constructing composites have been evaluated extensively in the UK, this is not the case in the US. In the current work, two popular computerized systems in the US, FACES and Identikit 2000, were evaluated against a ‘reference’ system, PRO-fit, where performance is established. In Experiment 1, witnesses constructed a composite with both PRO-fit and FACES using a realistic procedure. The resulting composites were very poorly named, but the PRO-fit emerged best in ‘cued’ naming and two supplementary measures: composite sorting and likeness ratings. In Experiment 2, PRO-fit was compared with Identikit 2000, a sketch-like feature system. Spontaneous naming was again very poor, but both cued naming and sorting suggested that the systems were similar. The results support previous findings that modern systems do not produce identifiable composites

How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Contextual bias has been widely discussed as a possible problem in forensic science. The trial simulation experiment reported here examined reactions of jurors at a county courthouse to cross‐examination and arguments about contextual bias in a hypothetical case. We varied whether the key prosecution witness (a forensic odontologist) was cross‐examined about the subjectivity of his interpretations and about his exposure to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant information. Jurors found the expert less credible and were less likely to convict when the expert admitted that his interpretation rested on subjective judgment, and when he admitted having been exposed to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant contextual information (relative to when these issues were not raised by the lawyers). The findings suggest, however, that forensic scientists can immunize themselves against such challenges and maximize the weight jurors give their evidence by adopting context management procedures that blind them to task‐irrelevant information

Interviewing techniques for Darwinian facial-composite systems.

Eyewitnesses are often asked to describe the appearance of an offender’s face, normally as part of a cognitive interview (CI), and then to construct a facial composite of it by selecting hair, eyes, nose, etc. Recent research indicates that facial composites of this type are rendered much-more identifiable when constructors focus on global character (holistic) judgements of the face after having recalled it in detail. Here, we investigated whether components of this so-called ‘holistic’ CI (H-CI) were applicable to newer ‘evolving’ (Darwinian) methods of face construction. We found that the face description component of the interview promoted better-quality composites than the holistic component, but the most-identifiable composites emerged when both components were used together in the same interview as an H-CI. Composites were also more identifiable following description of all features of the face than an alternative involving description of hair. Implications are discussed for real-world face-construction using evolving systems

Configural and featural information in facial-composite images

Eyewitnesses are often invited to construct a facial composite, an image created of the person they saw commit a crime that is used by law enforcement to locate criminal suspects. In the current paper, the effectiveness of composite images was investigated from traditional feature systems (E-FIT and PRO-fit), where participants (face constructors) selected individual features to build the face, and a more recent holistic system (EvoFIT), where they ‘evolved' a composite by repeatedly selecting from arrays of complete faces. Further participants attempted to name these composites when seen as an unaltered image, or when blurred, rotated, linearly stretched or converted to a photographic negative. All of the manipulations tested reduced correct naming of the composites overall except (i) for a low level of blur, for which naming improved for holistic composites but reduced for feature composites, and (ii) for 100% linear stretch, for which a substantial naming advantage was observed. Results also indicated that both featural (facial elements) and configural (feature spacing) information was useful for recognition in both types of composite system, but highly-detailed information was more accurate in the feature-based than the holistic method. The naming advantage of linear stretch was replicated using a forensically more-practical procedure with observers viewing an unaltered ¬composite sideways. The work is valuable to police practitioners and designers of facial-composite systems

The Impact of Fillers on Lineup Performance

Filler siphoning theory posits that the presence of fillers (known innocents) in a lineup protects an innocent suspect from being chosen by siphoning choices away from that innocent suspect. This mechanism has been proposed as an explanation for why simultaneous lineups (viewing all lineup members at once) induces better performance than showups (one-person identification procedures). We implemented filler siphoning in a computational model (WITNESS, Clark, Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629–654, 2003), and explored the impact of the number of fillers (lineup size) and filler quality on simultaneous and sequential lineups (viewing lineups members in sequence), and compared both to showups. In limited situations, we found that filler siphoning can produce a simultaneous lineup performance advantage, but one that is insufficient in magnitude to explain empirical data. However, the magnitude of the empirical simultaneous lineup advantage can be approximated once criterial variability is added to the model. But this modification works by negatively impacting showups rather than promoting more filler siphoning. In sequential lineups, fillers were found to harm performance. Filler siphoning fails to clarify the relationship between simultaneous lineups and sequential lineups or showups. By incorporating constructs like filler siphoning and criterial variability into a computational model, and trying to approximate empirical data, we can sort through explanations of eyewitness decision-making, a prerequisite for policy recommendations.Charges for publication of this article sponsored by University of Oklahoma Libraries Open Access/Subvention Fund.Ye

A survey on heterogeneous face recognition: Sketch, infra-red, 3D and low-resolution

Heterogeneous face recognition (HFR) refers to matching face imagery across different domains. It has received much interest from the research community as a result of its profound implications in law enforcement. A wide variety of new invariant features, cross-modality matching models and heterogeneous datasets are being established in recent years. This survey provides a comprehensive review of established techniques and recent developments in HFR. Moreover, we offer a detailed account of datasets and benchmarks commonly used for evaluation. We finish by assessing the state of the field and discussing promising directions for future research