1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'
2: % SP 2001/01/05
3:
4: \documentclass{elsart}
5:
6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing
7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}
8:
9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
10: % use the graphics package for simple commands
11: % \usepackage{graphics}
12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
13: % \usepackage{graphicx}
14: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
15: % \usepackage{epsfig}
16:
17: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols
18: \usepackage{amssymb}
19: \usepackage{graphicx}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \begin{frontmatter}
24:
25: % Title, authors and addresses
26:
27: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;
28: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;
29: % use the ead command for the email address,
30: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
31: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}
32: % \thanks[label1]{}
33: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}
34: % \ead{email address}
35: % \ead[url]{home page}
36: % \thanks[label2]{}
37: % \corauth[cor1]{}
38: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
39: % \thanks[label3]{}
40:
41: \title{Face Recognition in the Machine Reveals Properties of Human Face Recognition}
42:
43: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:
44: % \author[label1,label2]{}
45: % \address[label1]{}
46: % \address[label2]{}
47:
48: \author{Matthias S. Keil$ ^a$, \`Agata Lapedriza$ ^a$, David Masip$ ^b$ and Jordi Vitri\`a$^a$}
49:
50: \address{
51: $^a$Centre de Visi\'o per Computador (CVC), Dept. Inform\`atica. \\Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona \\
52: Bellaterra, Spain, 08193. \\
53: \{mats,agata, jordi\}@cvc.uab.es \\$^b$Department of Applied Mathematics and Analysis (MAiA)\\ University of Barcelona (UB)\\ Edifici
54: Hist\`oric Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 585, Barcelona 08007, Spain.\\ davidm@maia.ub.es\\}
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: % Text of abstract
58: Psychophysical studies suggest that face recognition takes place in a narrow band of low spatial
59: frequencies (``critical band''). Here, we examined the recognition performance of an artificial
60: face recognition system as a function of the size of the input images. Recognition performance was
61: quantified with three discriminability measures: Fisher Linear Discriminant Analysis, non
62: Parametric Discriminant Analysis, and mutual information. All of the three measures revealed a
63: maximum at the same image sizes. Since spatial frequency content is a function of image size, our
64: data consistently predict the range of psychophysical found frequencies. Our results therefore
65: support the notion that the critical band of spatial frequencies for face recognition in humans and
66: machines follows from inherent properties of face images.
67:
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70: \begin{keyword}
71: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
72: Face recognition, psychophysics, discriminability measures, spatial frequencies
73:
74: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
75: \PACS
76: \end{keyword}
77: \end{frontmatter}
78:
79: % main text
80: \section{Introduction}
81: A considerable number of psychophysical studies coincide in that mechanisms for face recognition in humans
82: do not use all available visual information about faces equally. The visual information we refer to concerns
83: the spatial frequency composition of face images. Specifically, a narrow band settled at the lower end of the
84: frequency spectrum seems to be optimally suited for the recognition of previously learnt faces. The frequency
85: band is centered at about $10$ to $15$ cycles per face, and its bandwidth is about $2$ octave
86: \cite{Ginsburg1984,TiegerGanz1979,FiorentiniMaffeiSandini1983,HayesMorroneBurr1986,PeliEtAl1994,%
87: CostenParkerCraw1994,Nasanen1999,OjanpaaNasanen2003}. Thus, face recognition (and also object
88: recognition in general) follows a bandpass characteristics in humans. Furthermore, this result
89: does not depend, to a first approximation, on viewing instance
90: \cite{HayesMorroneBurr1986,OjanpaaNasanen2003}. The unit for
91: spatial frequencies ``cycles per face'' (or ``cycles per object'') expresses this scale invariance.\\
92: %
93: Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, no conclusive explanation for the bandpass
94: characteristic of face recognition has emerged so far. A recent study conducted by one of the
95: authors linked this characteristic to inherent properties of face images. By examination of the
96: responses of a model of simple and complex cells to face images, Keil could show that higher
97: response amplitudes are obtained at spatial frequencies consistent with the corresponding
98: psychophysical data \cite{KeilFace2006}. Therefore, the visual system should encode visual
99: information for processing faces preferably at those spatial frequencies, where the highest
100: signal-to-noise ratio is obtained. Only then a fine discrimination between signals will be
101: possible. Or, otherwise expressed, only then
102: we will be able to learn and perceive fine differences between otherwise similar faces.\\
103: %
104: Given this link between the statistics of facial images and psychophysical data, we reasoned that
105: an artificial face recognition system should reveal similar properties as the human visual system
106: does: we expected to see an optimal recognition performance of the artificial system at the same
107: spatial frequencies as observed with humans. To this end, we explored several measures of
108: recognition performance. Furthermore, as suggested by the results from ref. \cite{KeilFace2006},
109: internal face features are the principal cause for the bandpass characteristic of face recognition.
110: This holds especially true for the eyes, but also for mouth and nose, albeit to a less extent.
111: Consequently, we suppressed external features (hairline, shoulder regions) in the present study.
112: The results of the present study suggest that the machine indeed does it like humans -- recognition
113: performance peaks within a narrow band of low spatial frequencies.\\
114:
115: This paper is organized as follows: the next section describes the image processing and the
116: separability criteria that have been considered in the experiments, section 3 shows the obtained
117: results, and section 4 summarizes and concludes this work.
118:
119: %
120: %
121: % Proposem:
122: %
123: % 1.-Un model teòric per a preveure quina es la dimensionalitat òptima per al problema del reconeixement facial.
124: %
125: % 2.-Un conjunt de mesures que es poden fer servir per a mesurar la discriminabilitat de dos conjunts.
126: %
127: % 3.-Experiments pràctics:
128: % -No tenim en compte el percentatge d'encert, depen de cada BD (tot i que podriem fer-ho).
129: % -Usem un pool de mesures de separabilitat. En quin espai les dades de diferents classes estan més separades i les de la mateixa clase més juntes.
130: % 4.- Conclusió: Els resultats teòrics i pràctics lliguen. El millor espai es el de dimensió ZZxYY,
131: % que es correspon amb les frequencies FF.
132: %
133: % The paper is organized as follows:
134: %
135: % -Seccions Matthias: Gabors, etc.. estudio teorico,... --> THE IMPORTANT FINDINGS ARE COVERED BY THE INTRODUCTION!!!
136: %
137: %-Measuring discriminability
138: %
139: %-Experiments
140: %
141: %-Conclusions
142: %
143: %
144: %---------------------------------------------------------
145: \section{Methods}
146: %---------------------------------------------------------
147: %
148: %
149: %
150: %---------------------------------------------------------
151: \subsection{Processing of face images}\label{preparation}
152: %---------------------------------------------------------
153: %
154: For our experiments, we used images from the FRGC Database
155: (\textit{http://www.bee-biometrics.org/}). In these images, faces
156: appear against uniform, grey background, and with homogeneous
157: illumination conditions for all subjects. The database consisted
158: of $3772$ high quality images from $275$ different persons, where
159: four to $32$ images exist for each subject. To perform the
160: experiments we first aligned and then resized the images such that
161: each resulting image had an eye-to-eye distance of $50$ pixels.
162: Figure \ref{FRGC_database_samples} shows some examples of the such
163: normalized images.\\
164: %
165: \begin{figure}[th]
166: \centering
167: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{FRGC_samples.eps}
168: \caption{Example images from the FRGC database. The images were acquired
169: under controlled conditions.} \label{FRGC_database_samples}
170: \end{figure}
171: %
172: Due to their relatively high variability, we decided to suppress external face features by windowing
173: each face image with a 4-term Blackman-Harris window (``B.H.-window''). This window was compared to
174: $15$ alternative windows, and scored the highest similarity with corresponding images whose external
175: features were removed manually \cite{KeilFace2006}. For each image, the window
176: was centered at the position of the nose $(x_\mathit{nose},y_\mathit{nose})$. The nose position was
177: estimated from the coordinates of the left and the right eye $(x_\mathit{le},y_\mathit{le})$,
178: $(x_\mathit{re},y_\mathit{re})$, respectively, and the mouth $(x_\mathit{mouth},y_\mathit{mouth})$:
179: %
180: \def\rnd{\mathrm{rnd}}
181: \begin{eqnarray}\label{NosePosition}
182: x_\mathit{nose} &=& \rnd\left((x_\mathit{le}+x_\mathit{re})/4 + x_\mathit{mouth}/2\right)\\\nonumber
183: y_\mathit{nose} &=& \rnd [0.95*\rnd (y_\mathit{le} + (y_\mathit{mouth}\\\nonumber
184: & & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - (y_\mathit{le}+y_\mathit{re})/2)/2 ) ]
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: %
187: The operator $\rnd(\cdot)$ denotes rounding of its argument to the
188: nearest integer value. Figure \ref{FRGC_database_samples_with_BH}
189: illustrates result of applying the B.H.-window to the images of
190: Figure \ref{FRGC_database_samples}.\\
191: %
192: \begin{figure}[th]
193: \centering
194: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{FRGC_samples_BH.eps}
195: \caption{The images shown here are the result of applying a Blackman-Harris window to the images of
196: Figure \ref{FRGC_database_samples}. The application of the Blackman-Harris window leads to a good
197: suppression of external face features (e.g. hair and shoulders).}
198: \label{FRGC_database_samples_with_BH}
199: \end{figure}
200: %
201: We adopted the following procedure to assess the frequency-dependence of face recognition with our
202: artificial system. Each image was down-sized to continuously smaller sizes. After down-sizing, we
203: enhanced the highest spatial frequencies with a modified algorithm for suppressing illumination
204: effects \cite{GrossBrajovic03}. Specifically, we modified the algorithm such that its output
205: mimicked the responses of retinal ganglion cells \cite{Kuffler53} in a way that contour enhancement
206: at high spatial frequencies occurred (Figure \ref{WeberSamples}). Consequently, our
207: ``Weber-filtered'' images are dominated by the Nyquist frequencies associated with each image size.
208: In this way, computational time could be saved over naive bandpass filtering.
209: %
210: \begin{figure}[th]
211: \centering
212: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{FRGC_weber.eps}
213: \caption{Examples of images after applying the ``Weber-filtering''. Compared
214: to the original images (top row), Weber-filtering leads to enhancement of high spatial
215: frequencies, and discounts illumination effects at the same time (bottom row).}
216: \label{WeberSamples}
217: \end{figure}
218: %
219: %
220: %---------------------------------------------------------
221: \subsection{Separability Measures}\label{measures}
222: %---------------------------------------------------------
223:
224: In order to measure the optimal dimensionality we need to define a formal class separability
225: criterion. Class separability can be measured in terms of classification accuracy or class
226: distribution. In the first case, the measure is highly dependent on the classifier used. In this
227: paper we propose the use of a classifier-independent set of statistical
228: measures to validate the psychophysical results for human face recognition.\\
229: %
230: Two types of class separability measures are described in the literature \cite{Fukunaga90}, where
231: one is based on scatter matrices, and the other one is based on imposing an upper limit on the
232: Bayes error (Bhattacharyya distance). In this paper we will focus on the former measure (scatter
233: matrices), because the latter approach necessitates the estimation of probability distributions,
234: which is a notoriously
235: difficult endeavor.\\
236: %
237: A further statistical criterion to measure the separability between classes is based on mutual
238: information, which is defined as:
239: %
240: \begin{equation}
241: I(X,Y)=\int\int p(X,Y)log \left ( \frac{p(X,Y)}{p(X)p(Y)} \right ) dXdY
242: \end{equation}
243: %
244: where $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables, and $p(X)$ and $p(Y)$ their respective probability
245: density functions. In this paper we compute mutual information between data points $X$ and classes
246: $C$. A large value of mutual information in this case means that we have much information about the
247: class $C$ given the observation $X$. On the other hand, if the mutual information is zero, then
248: both variables are independent. Notice that the computation of mutual information also
249: necessitates the estimation of corresponding probability distributions. However, Torkkola
250: \cite{Torkkola03} recently proposed a method which makes the computation of mutual information
251: feasible by using a quadratic divergence measure that allows an efficient non-parametric
252: implementation, without prior assumptions about class densities. More concretely, his approximation
253: is inspired by the quadratic Renyi entropy, and the method can be used with training data sets of
254: the order of tens of thousands of samples.
255:
256: %
257: %---------------------------------------------------------
258: \subsection{Discriminant Analysis}\label{discriminant}
259: %---------------------------------------------------------
260: %
261: Classic discriminant analysis techniques have often been applied to linear feature extraction in
262: order to find the projection matrix that preserves the class separability of data points.
263: Typically, two kind of statistics have been used for this purpose: \emph{(i)} the within class
264: scatter matrix that shows the scatter of samples around the same class, and \emph{(ii)} the between
265: class scatter matrix.\\
266: %
267: In order to formulate a criterion for class separability, each matrix has to be reduced to a single
268: and unique number. This number should be large when the between class scatter is large -- or when
269: the within class variation is small. Several ways for computing the number have been defined in the
270: literature:
271: %
272: \def\trace{\mathit{trace}}
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: J_1 &=& \trace(S_2^{-1}S_1) \label{crit_1}\\
275: J_2 &=&ln|S_2^{-1}S_1| \label{crit_2}\\
276: J_3 &=&\frac{\trace(S_1)}{\trace(S_2)} \label{crit_3}
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: %
279: In the classic feature extraction literature the $J_1$ criterium is used, given that it can be
280: maximized using a closed formulation. The general technique to get the job done is known as Fisher
281: Linear Discriminant Analysis (FLD) \cite{Fisher36}, and uses as ${\bf S}_1$:
282: %
283: \begin{equation}
284: \textbf{S}_B=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K ({\bf m}_k-{\bf m}_0)({\bf m}_k-{\bf m}_0)^T
285: \label{eq_FLD_between}
286: \end{equation}
287: %
288: where ${\bf m}_k$ is the class-conditional sample mean and $\textbf{m}_0$ is the unconditional
289: (global) sample mean. Furthermore, for ${\bf S}_2$:
290: %
291: \begin{equation}
292: \textbf{S}_W=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K {\bf S}_k
293: \label{eq_FLD_within}
294: \end{equation}
295: %
296: where ${\bf S}_k$ is the class-conditional covariance matrix for $C_k$ estimated from the data.\\
297: %
298: The main problem with the classical FLD approach is that the optimization of the criterion
299: (\ref{crit_1}) using ${\bf S}_B$ and ${\bf S}_W$ is blind for anything beyond second order
300: statistics. As a consequence, it may be inaccurate for measuring separability of more complex
301: structures. To remedy, Fukunaga and Mantock \cite{Fukunaga83} propose to use a non-parametric
302: estimated between-class scatter matrix $\textbf{S}_B$, which has generally a full rank. This
303: estimation was used in the non Parametric Discriminant Analysis algorithm (NDA), which has been
304: shown to considerable improve the accuracy of the classic FLD. In a nutshell, the non parametric
305: between class scatter matrix is estimated as follows.\\
306: %
307: Let ${\bf x}$ be a data point in ${\bf X}$ with class label $C_j$, and by
308: $x^{\rm{\overline{class}}}$ the subset of the $k$ nearest neighbors of ${\bf x}$ among the data
309: points in ${\bf X}$ with class labels different from $C_j$. We calculate a local between-class
310: matrix for ${\bf x}$ as:
311: %
312: \begin{equation}
313: \Delta_{B}^{\bf x}=\frac{1}{k-1}\sum_{{\bf z}\in x^{\rm{\overline{class}}}} ({\bf z}-{\bf x})({\bf
314: z}-{\bf x})^T
315: \end{equation}
316: %
317: The estimate of the between-class scatter matrix ${\bf S}_B$ is found as the average of the local
318: matrices
319: %
320: \begin{equation}
321: {\bf S}_B=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf z}\in X} \Delta_B^{\bf z}
322: \end{equation}
323: %
324: The resulting ${\bf S}_B$ is used in the criterion (\ref{crit_1}) as the new $S_1$.
325: %
326: %
327: %---------------------------------------------------------
328: \section{Results}
329: %---------------------------------------------------------
330: We used the three separability measures described in the previous section
331: (FLD, NDA and MI) for evaluating the recognition performance as a function
332: of image size. To this end, $20$ subjects were randomly selected, with each
333: of the subjects having more than $25$ images to compute the different geometrical
334: and statistical measures described above. All numerical experiments were carried
335: out with the original image set, and a second image set obtained by applying
336: Weber-filtering \cite{GrossBrajovic03}. In this way we were able to address
337: how our results depend on the presence of low spatial frequencies in the
338: down-sized images.\\
339: %
340: Figures \ref{fig FLD}, \ref{fig NDA}, and \ref{fig MI} show the dependence of the FLD (Fisher
341: Linear Discriminant Analysis), NDA (non Parametric Discriminant Analysis), and MI (mutual
342: information) measures, respectively, on image size. Each of the three measures reveals a distinct
343: maximum at approximately the same image size (around $22\times22$ pixels). As one can appreciate
344: from the sample images shown in Figure \ref{FRGC_database_small}, this image size translates to
345: roughly $8$ to $10$ cycles per face, what compares favorably to the psychophysical results as
346: described in the introduction. The recognition performance (in terms of discriminability) also
347: reveals some dependency on whether the original images are used, or whether the face images were
348: Weber-filtered. Specifically, the maxima show a trend to get more pronounced with Weber-filtering.
349: At the same time, the amplitudes of NDA and MI (but not FLD) grow, indicating an increased
350: recognition performance when only a small band of spatial frequencies is used. This behavior of
351: our artificial face recognition system is also consistent with corresponding psychophysical
352: observations with humans -- the bandwidth for face recognition was estimated to be around two
353: octaves (e.g., \cite{Nasanen1999}).
354: %
355: \begin{figure}[th]
356: \centering
357: \includegraphics[width=4.6in]{FRGC_petites.eps}
358: \caption{Examples at image sizes which are associated with maximum discrimination. ($22\times22$ ).
359: The image sizes translate to approximately $5-8$ cycles per face width, and $6-12$ cycles per face
360: height, and are thus within the ballpark of the corresponding psychophysical data. Notice that here
361: the re-sized \emph{original} images are shown (i.e., without application of the Blackman-Harris
362: window) to achieve a better visibility.} \label{FRGC_database_small}
363: \end{figure}
364: %
365: \begin{figure}
366: \centering
367: \begin{tabular}{cc}
368:
369: \includegraphics[width=3in]{FLD_0.eps}&
370: \includegraphics[width=3in]{FLD_1.eps}
371: \end{tabular}
372: \caption{FLD (Fisher Linear Discriminant Analysis) Measure. Left plot shows results with
373: the original images, right plot with Weber-filtered images.}
374: \label{fig FLD}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: \begin{figure}
378: \centering
379: \begin{tabular}{cc}
380:
381: \includegraphics[width=3in]{nda_0.eps}&
382: \includegraphics[width=3in]{nda_1.eps}
383: \end{tabular}
384: \caption{NDA (non Parametric Discriminant Analysis) Measure. Left plot shows results with
385: the original images, right plot with Weber-filtered images.}
386: \label{fig NDA}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: \begin{figure}
390: \centering
391: \begin{tabular}{cc}
392:
393: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{mi_0.eps}&
394: \includegraphics[width=2.8in]{mi_1.eps}
395: \end{tabular}
396: \caption{MI (mutual information) Measure. Left plot shows results with
397: the original images, right plot with Weber-filtered images.}
398: \label{fig MI}
399: \end{figure}
400:
401: %\begin{figure}
402: %\centering
403: % \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{images/nda_1.eps}
404: % \caption{NDA Measure}
405: % \label{fig_PresidentIllusion}
406: %\end{figure}
407:
408: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
409: Psychophysical studies suggest that for face recognition, human observers make use of a narrow band
410: at low spatial frequencies ($10$ to $15$ cycles per face, bandwidth two octaves). Here, we
411: evaluated the recognition performance of an artificial face recognition system as a function of
412: image size. Recognition performance was measured by three different measures (Fisher Linear
413: Discriminant Analysis, non Parametric Discriminant Analysis, and mutual information), which all
414: indicated a performance maximum of the artificial system at an image size of about $22\times22$
415: pixels. This corresponds to spatial frequencies at around $8-10$ cycles per face, thus comparing
416: well to the range of measured psychophysical data (although the psychophysical data are somewhat
417: underestimated). We also found an effect of the presence of low spatial frequencies in the image.
418: Recognition performance seems to even increase when low spatial frequencies are suppressed by
419: Weber-filtering. In other words, decreasing the bandwidth of the spectrum of spatial frequencies in
420: the face images increases the recognition performance, at least when measured by non Parametric
421: Discriminant Analysis and mutual information. Such behavior is again in line with the narrow band
422: of critical
423: spatial frequencies found psychophysically.\\
424: The present study furthermore lends further support to the findings of Keil \cite{KeilFace2006} in
425: that the stimuli (i.e., face images) provide the explanation of the preference of a narrow spatial
426: frequency band for both human and artificial face recognition. As a consequence, artificial face
427: recognition systems should focus on these frequencies to achieve an optimal recognition performance
428: (in terms od class separability). Because this critical spatial frequencies correspond to small
429: image patches, a further advantage is an economic use of resources for both processing and storing
430: faces.
431: \section{Acknowledgment}
432: %This work is supported by MCYT grant TIC2003-00654, and FP2000-4960 Ministerio de Ciencia y
433: %Tecnologia, Spain.
434: MSK is supported by a \emph{Juan de la Cierva} program from the Spanish government. Further
435: support for this work was provided by a grant TIC2003-00654 from the Ministerio de Ciencia y
436: Tecnologia, Spain.
437: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;
438: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections
439: % \appendix
440:
441: % \section{}
442: % \label{}
443:
444: %\begin{thebibliography}{00}
445:
446: % \bibitem{label}
447: % Text of bibliographic item
448:
449: % notes:
450: % \bibitem{label} \note
451:
452: % subbibitems:
453: % \begin{subbibitems}{label}
454: % \bibitem{label1}
455: % \bibitem{label2}
456: % If there is a note, it should come last:
457: % \bibitem{label3} \note
458: % \end{subbibitems}
459:
460: %\bibitem{}
461: %\end{thebibliography}
462:
463:
464: % ==========================================================================
465: %\bibliographystyle{./elsart-num}
466: %\bibliography{./refs}
467: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
468: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
469: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
470: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
471:
472: \bibitem{Ginsburg1984}
473: A.~Ginsburg, A new contrast sensitivity vision test chart, American Journal of
474: Optometry and Physiological Optics 61 (1984) 403--407.
475:
476: \bibitem{TiegerGanz1979}
477: T.~Tieger, L.~Ganz, Recognition of faces in the presence of two-dimensional
478: sinusoidal masks, Perception and Psychophysics 26 (1979) 163--167.
479:
480: \bibitem{FiorentiniMaffeiSandini1983}
481: A.~Fiorentini, L.~Maffei, G.~Sandini, The role of high spatial frequencies in
482: face perception, Perception 12 (1983) 195--201.
483:
484: \bibitem{HayesMorroneBurr1986}
485: A.~Hayes, M.~Morrone, D.~Burr, Recognition of positive and negative band-pass
486: filtered images, Perception 15 (1986) 595--602.
487:
488: \bibitem{PeliEtAl1994}
489: E.~Peli, E.~Lee, C.~Trempe, S.~Buzney, Image enhancement for the visually
490: impaired: the effects of enhancement on face recognition, Journal of the
491: Optical Society of America A 11 (1994) 1929--1939.
492:
493: \bibitem{CostenParkerCraw1994}
494: N.~Costen, D.~Parker, I.~Craw, Spatial content and spatial quantisation effects
495: in face recognition, Perception 23 (1994) 129--146.
496:
497: \bibitem{Nasanen1999}
498: R.~N{\"a}s{\"a}nen, Spatial frequency bandwidth used in the recognition of
499: facial images, Vision Research 39 (1999) 3824--3833.
500:
501: \bibitem{OjanpaaNasanen2003}
502: H.~Ojanp{\"a}{\"a}, R.~N{\"a}s{\"a}nen, Utilisation of spatial frequency
503: information in face search, Vision Research (2003) 2505--2515.
504:
505: \bibitem{KeilFace2006}
506: M.~Keil, The theory of whitening predicts a critical band of spatial
507: frequencies for human face processing, (in preparation).
508:
509: \bibitem{GrossBrajovic03}
510: R.~Gross, V.~Brajovic, An image preprocessing algorithm for illumination
511: invariant face recognition, in: J.~Kittler, M.~Nixon (Eds.), Springer Lecture
512: Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 2688, AVBPA, 2003, pp. 10--18.
513:
514: \bibitem{Kuffler53}
515: S.~Kuffler, Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina,
516: Journal of Neurophysiology 16 (1953) 37--68.
517:
518: \bibitem{Fukunaga90}
519: K.~Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition, 2nd Edition,
520: Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990.
521:
522: \bibitem{Torkkola03}
523: K.~Torkkola, Feature extraction by non parametric mutual information
524: maximization, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (2003) 1415--1438.
525:
526: \bibitem{Fisher36}
527: R.~Fisher, The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems, Ann.
528: Eugenics 7 (1936) 179--188.
529:
530: \bibitem{Fukunaga83}
531: K.~Fukunaga, J.~Mantock, Nonparametric discriminant analysis, {IEEE
532: Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence} 5~(6) (1983)
533: 671--678.
534:
535: \end{thebibliography}
536:
537: % ==========================================================================
538:
539: \end{document}
540: