st
er
s.
Po
C
st
er
s.
Po
0
00
F1
d.
ec
te
Po
st
e
d.
te
00
00
0
Po
s
te
d.
te
pr
ot
ec
O’Toole, A. J., Roark, D. A., & Abdi, H. (2002). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 261-266.
Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330-337.
Knight, B., & Johnston, A. (1997). Visual Cognition, 4, 265-273.
Hill, H., Jinno, Y., & Johnston, A. (2003). Perception, 32, 561-566.
.C
rs
F1
ht
ig
yr
op
References
rs
0
ec
ot
pr
rs
te
Po
s
10
00
.F
pr
ht
yr
ig
rs
.C
op
00
F1
pr
ht
ig
yr
op
.C
00
F1
0
00
F1
d.
yr
ig
Po
st
e
ot
0
ec
op
rs
.C
op
0
00
F1
te
yr
d.
• Expt 1: Manipulation x Movement, p = .013
• Expt 2: Manipulation x Familiarity, p = .037
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
ed
.
ec
te
pr
ht
Po
st
e
ec
ot
pr
ht
ig
•Some interactions
2. Familiar faces are matched more accurately than unfamiliar faces
• Even when participants do not know the face is familiar
ct
STATIC
ot
rs
.C
op
MOVING
• Expt 1: F(1,15) = 8.56, p = .01, eta2 = .363
• Expt 2: F(1,32) = 3.98, p = .054, eta2 = .111
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
o
0
ot
pr
ht
yr
ig
STATIC
Conclusions
.C
rs
te
Po
s
00
F1
d.
ec
te
ot
pr
yr
ig
rs
.C
op
te
Po
s
0
00
F1
d.
te
C
op
te
rs
.
• Expt 1: Dynamic > Static, p = .009
Po
s
te
pr
o
ig
ht
eta2
•Dynamic > Static…sometimes
00
F1
0
te
d.
ot
ec
pr
ht
op
y
rig
Experiment 2: Matching Video to PLD and
Video to avatar (N=33 undergrads)
ht
te
Po
s
00
.F
te
d
ec
pr
ht
yr
ig
Po
st
e
0
00
F1
d.
ec
te
C
• Expt 1: F(1,15) = 17.46, p = .001,
= .538
• Expt 2: F(1,32) = 6.33, p = .017, eta2 = .165
• 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
Experiment 1: Matching PLD to PLD and
avatar to avatar (N=16 undergrads)
Experiment 2
•PLD > Avatar
• Familiar > Unfamiliar
3. Do any of these effects change when
participants have a non-degraded image to
compare to? (Experiment 1 vs Experiment 2)
• 2 s clips of 6 familiar (famous) and 6 unfamiliar
faces, converted to PLDs and avatars. Sequential
same/different task, within subjects
MOVING
STATIC
• Expt 2: Dynamic = Static, p = 1
Methods
s.
MOVING
ot
MOVING STATIC
2. Does familiarity improve movement-based face
matching? (Familiar vs Unfamiliar)
ht
pr
ot
10
pr
ht
yr
ig
rs
.C
op
00
10
.F
Questions
• Is performance affected by the image
manipulation used? (PLD vs avatar)
os
te
r
yr
ig
rs
.
F1
d.
ot
ec
te
.C
op
rs
te
Po
s
• 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)
Results
C
op
00
0
ot
pr
ht
yr
ig
Experiment 1
• To examine movement-based face recognition, it
is important to reduce static facial information3
ed
ht
te
ec
Po
s
te
yr
.C
op
rs
te
• Familiar faces are generally easier to match
than unfamiliar faces2 - but few studies have
tested this with moving faces
shown)
pr
rs
.
Email: [email protected]
• Characteristic facial movements can be used as
an alternative pathway to recognise individuals1
os
ot
ec
te
d.
C
op
yr
F1
00
0
of Western Sydney 2 Newcastle University 3Macquarie University 4CSIRO
d.
ig
1 University
Background
py
rig
F1
ig
ht
Po
st
e
ed
.
Rachel J. Bennetts1, Darren Burke2, Kevin Brooks3, Jeesun Kim1, Simon Lucey4, Jason Saragih4 & Rachel A. Robbins1
ht
pr
ot
ec
t
Avatars versus point-light faces: Movement matching is better without a face