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
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 However, trial‐by‐trial feedback helped to maintain accuracy at baseline level after feedback was withdrawn again, even with new faces (Experiments 1–3).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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Deci, E. L. (1975) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9 · Cited by 2,911
Yin, R. K. (1969) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027474 · Cited by 2,624
Standing, L. (1973) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/14640747308400340 · Cited by 968
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 70
- 10.1037/h0030766 · DOI
- Annett J., 1969, Feedback and human behavior
- 10.1109/MAES.2010.5631724 · DOI
- 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0029635 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13506280244000168 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01795.x · DOI
- 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/acp.2350010204 · DOI
- Burton A. M., 2011, The Oxford handbook of face perception
- 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02039.x · DOI
- 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/h0047095 · DOI
- 10.1080/09541440340000439 · DOI
- 10.2307/254752 · DOI
- Costigan R., 2007, Identification from CCTV: The risk of injustice, Criminal Law Review, 591
- 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/h0032355 · DOI
- 10.1212/01.WNL.0000118297.03161.B3 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00222-1 · DOI
- 10.1068/p080431 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00731.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0027393 · DOI
- Gibbs C. B., 1955, Increased production from the information incentive in a repetitive task
- 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/scientificamerican1173-70 · DOI
- 10.1177/106480460201000104 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.986 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00785-8 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03327918 · DOI
- Hofer F., 2005, Using threat image projection data for assessing individual screener performance, Safety and Security Engineering, 82, 417, 10.2495/SAFE050411 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0027412 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.visres.2009.06.014 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1970.tb01642.x · DOI
- Jenkins R., 2008, Limitations in facial identification: The evidence, Justice of the Peace, 172, 4
- 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
- 10.1068/p210365 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01320096 · DOI
- 10.1080/08995605.2012.672903 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.77 · DOI
- 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
- 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
- Megreya A. M., Matching images of faces taken on the same day or months apart: The limitations of photo‐ID, Applied Cognitive Psychology
- 10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.018 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.004 · DOI
- Mory E. H., 2004, Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 745
- Narciss S., 2008, Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 125
- 10.1037/h0082899 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7 · DOI
- 10.1038/384460a0 · DOI
- Sinha P., 2002, Perceptual learning
- 10.3758/BF03337426 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0040934 · DOI · Paper page
- White D., Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
- 10.1068/p140737 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software
White, D., Dunn, J. D., Schmid, A. C., & Kemp, R. I. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139827 · Cited by 141
Growns, B., & Kukucka, J. (2021) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3800 · Cited by 20
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