Cited by 54

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Feedback on Face‐Matching Accuracy

Alenezi, Hamood M., Bindemann, Markus·2013·Applied Cognitive Psychology

Abstract

Summary: In face matching, observers have to decide if two photographs depict the same person or different people. This is a remarkably difficult task, so the current study investigated whether it can be improved when observers receive feedback for their performance. In five experiments, observers' initial matching performance was recorded before feedback for their accuracy was administered across three blocks. Improvements were then assessed with faces that had been seen previously with or without feedback and with completely new, previously unseen faces. In all experiments, feedback failed to improve face‐matching accuracy. However, trial‐by‐trial feedback helped to maintain accuracy at baseline level after feedback was withdrawn again, even with new faces (Experiments 1–3). By contrast, when no feedback was given throughout the experiment (Experiments 1–3) or when outcome feedback was administered at the end of blocks (Experiments 4 and 5), a continuous decline in matching accuracy was found, whereby observers found it increasingly difficult to tell different facial identities apart. A sixth experiment showed that this decline in accuracy continues throughout when the matching task is prolonged substantially. Together, these findings indicate that observers find it increasingly difficult to differentiate faces in matching tasks over time, but trial‐by‐trial feedback can help to maintain accuracy. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.2968

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent work has shown that providing feedback on the accuracy of face matching decisions and performing face matching decisions in groups can improve accuracy in face matching tasks.

    “Alternatively, recent work has shown that providing feedback on the accuracy of face matching decisions [36, 37] and performing face matching decisions in groups [38] can improve accuracy in face matching tasks.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Discussion reports that feedback prevented a decline in face-matching accuracy relative to no feedback. But it also says feedback did not improve accuracy above initial baseline levels, so the unqualified claim that it can improve accuracy overstates this paper’s finding. The separate claim about group decisions is attributed to [38], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. 10.1037/h0030766 · DOI
  2. Annett J., 1969, Feedback and human behavior
  3. 10.1109/MAES.2010.5631724 · DOI
  4. 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
  6. 10.1037/a0029635 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1080/13506280244000168 · DOI
  8. Brown E., 1977, Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311, 10.1037/0021-9010.62.3.311 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01795.x · DOI
  10. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1002/acp.2350010204 · DOI
  12. Burton A. M., 2011, The Oxford handbook of face perception
  13. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02039.x · DOI
  14. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1037/h0047095 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/09541440340000439 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/254752 · DOI
  19. Costigan R., 2007, Identification from CCTV: The risk of injustice, Criminal Law Review, 591
  20. 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1037/h0032355 · DOI
  22. 10.1212/01.WNL.0000118297.03161.B3 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00222-1 · DOI
  24. 10.1068/p080431 · DOI
  25. Endo M., 1984, Effects of observer's attitude on the familiarity of faces: Using the difference in cue value between central and peripheral facial elements as an index of familiarity, Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 43, 23
  26. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00731.x · DOI
  27. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218 · DOI
  28. 10.1037/a0027393 · DOI
  29. Gibbs C. B., 1955, Increased production from the information incentive in a repetitive task
  30. 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1038/scientificamerican1173-70 · DOI
  33. 10.1177/106480460201000104 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.986 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00785-8 · DOI
  37. 10.3758/BF03327918 · DOI
  38. Hofer F., 2005, Using threat image projection data for assessing individual screener performance, Safety and Security Engineering, 82, 417, 10.2495/SAFE050411 · DOI
  39. 10.1037/h0027412 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.visres.2009.06.014 · DOI
  41. 10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1970.tb01642.x · DOI
  43. Jenkins R., 2008, Limitations in facial identification: The evidence, Justice of the Peace, 172, 4
  44. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  46. 10.1068/p210365 · DOI
  47. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
  48. 10.1007/BF01320096 · DOI
  49. 10.1080/08995605.2012.672903 · DOI
  50. 10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.77 · DOI
  51. 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
  52. 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
  56. Megreya A. M., Matching images of faces taken on the same day or months apart: The limitations of photo‐ID, Applied Cognitive Psychology
  57. 10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.018 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.004 · DOI
  59. Mory E. H., 2004, Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 745
  60. Narciss S., 2008, Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 125
  61. 10.1037/h0082899 · DOI
  62. 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7 · DOI
  65. 10.1038/384460a0 · DOI
  66. Sinha P., 2002, Perceptual learning
  67. 10.3758/BF03337426 · DOI
  68. 10.1037/h0040934 · DOI · Paper page
  69. White D., Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
  70. 10.1068/p140737 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Alenezi, H. M., & Bindemann, M.
Affiliations
School of Psychology University of Kent Canterbury UK
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
735-753
ISSN
  • 0888-4080
  • 1099-0720
Cited by
54
References
5
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review