Face matching performance as a function of survey condition for Study 2 (threshold = 0.5).</p
Diagnostic accuracy at different base case model thresholds in PRIEST test data.</p
<p>Recognition rate of the proposed FER system using MUG dataset of facial expressions (Unit: %).</p
This provides an additional analysis of the data from both experiments, where increasing and decreas...
Face matching performance as a function of test condition for Study 1 (threshold = 0.5).</p
Face identification performance in sensitivity d’ (n = 24; means and 95% confidence intervals).</p
<p>Performance is expressed as correct rejection (CR), hit, miss and misidentification (MISID) rates...
<p>Performance is expressed as correct rejection (CR), hit, miss and misidentification (MISID) rates...
<p>Performance comparison on the Yale face database (results of our proposed algorithm are in bold)....
<p>Performance comparison on the FERET face database (results obtained with our proposed algorithm a...
<p>Face matching plotted against proportion of 50/50 morphs detected (some points over-lay).</p
<p>Comparison of facial evaluation score of present study with studies on other populations.</p
The performance of the proposed model at two extreme thresholds with different sparsity.</p
The comparison data of match rate between the traditional SIFT feature matching method and the propo...
Statistics comparing the recoded responses for the three behavior questions by condition.</p
Population parameters of performance scores in the d2 Sustained-Attention Test.</p
Diagnostic accuracy at different base case model thresholds in PRIEST test data.</p
<p>Recognition rate of the proposed FER system using MUG dataset of facial expressions (Unit: %).</p
This provides an additional analysis of the data from both experiments, where increasing and decreas...
Face matching performance as a function of test condition for Study 1 (threshold = 0.5).</p
Face identification performance in sensitivity d’ (n = 24; means and 95% confidence intervals).</p
<p>Performance is expressed as correct rejection (CR), hit, miss and misidentification (MISID) rates...
<p>Performance is expressed as correct rejection (CR), hit, miss and misidentification (MISID) rates...
<p>Performance comparison on the Yale face database (results of our proposed algorithm are in bold)....
<p>Performance comparison on the FERET face database (results obtained with our proposed algorithm a...
<p>Face matching plotted against proportion of 50/50 morphs detected (some points over-lay).</p
<p>Comparison of facial evaluation score of present study with studies on other populations.</p
The performance of the proposed model at two extreme thresholds with different sparsity.</p
The comparison data of match rate between the traditional SIFT feature matching method and the propo...
Statistics comparing the recoded responses for the three behavior questions by condition.</p
Population parameters of performance scores in the d2 Sustained-Attention Test.</p
Diagnostic accuracy at different base case model thresholds in PRIEST test data.</p
<p>Recognition rate of the proposed FER system using MUG dataset of facial expressions (Unit: %).</p
This provides an additional analysis of the data from both experiments, where increasing and decreas...
DOI
Add to ORKG