Looking to the future, there are indications of how performance could be improved even further. For instance, composites are normally rendered from a front view in two dimensions and, while this may be fine for many crimes, for others there may be benefit for construction at a non-frontal view. An face seen through the side window of a car, offender’s for example, may be more accurately reproduced at a view which matches that seen by the witness. Recent research already indicates that construction is not optimal when users are required to mentally rotate the face (Frowd, White & Kemp in press), a principle which et al., applies to recognition of unfamiliar faces (e.g. Liu, Chai, Shan, Honma & Osada, 2009). Development of a 3D user-defined model is a sensible solution. In fact, images of faces change with viewing distance, and such changes in perception can interfere with unfamiliar face recognition (Liu & Chaudhuri, 2002). A multi-view model should be able to accurately render differences in perspective, so that the image at construction is a better match to the image seen at the crime scene. Therefore, memory should be facilitated by the greater overlap of cues seen that are available at recall (the encoding specificity principle; Tulving & Thompson, 1973). The same principle may be applicable to other factors such as lighting and facial expression. Promising signs are also on the horizon for augmenting the manual sketch method of face production, for example by combining the H-CI with context-based feature selection. References ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2003). National working practices in facial imaging. Unpublished document. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2009). Facial Identification Guidance. Produced by the National Policing Improvement Agency. Available to download at www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2009/200911CRIFIG01.pdf
Looking to the future, there are indications of how performance could be improved even further. For instance, composites are normally rendered from a front view in two dimensions and, while this may be fine for many crimes, for others there may be benefit for construction at a non-frontal view. An offender’s face seen through the side window of a car, for example, may be more accurately reproduced at a view which matches that seen by the witness. Recent research already indicates that construction is not optimal when users are required to mentally rotate the face (Frowd, White & Kemp et al., in press), a principle which applies to recognition of unfamiliar faces (e.g. Liu, Chai, Shan, Honma & Osada, 2009). Development of a 3D user-defined model is a sensible solution. In fact, images of faces change with viewing distance, and such changes in perception can interfere with unfamiliar face recognition (Liu & Chaudhuri, 2002). A multi-view model should be able to accurately render differences in perspective, so that the image at construction is a better match to the image seen at the crime scene. Therefore, memory should be facilitated by the greater overlap of cues seen that are available at recall (the encoding specificity principle; Tulving & Thompson, 1973). The same principle may be applicable to other factors such as lighting and facial expression. Promising signs are also on the horizon for augmenting the manual sketch method of face production, for example by combining the H-CI with context-based feature selection. References ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2003). National working practices in facial imaging. Unpublished document. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2009). Facial Identification Guidance. Produced by the National Policing Improvement Agency. Available to download at www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2009/200911CRIFIG01.pdf
FrowdReview2014.docx