CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining the photo-ID paradox

Ritchie, Kay L., Smith, Finlay G., Jenkins, Rob, Bindemann, Markus, White, David, Burton, A. Mike·2015·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.002

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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: 24

  1. Bruce, 1986, Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces, Perception, 15, 387, 10.1068/p150387 · DOI
  2. Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339
  3. Bruce, 2001, Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 207
  4. Burton, 2011, Mental representations of familiar faces, British Journal of Psychology, 102, 943, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02039.x · DOI
  5. Burton, 1999, Face recognition in poor quality video: Evidence from security surveillance, Psychological Science, 10, 243, 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Clutterbuck, 2002, Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure, Perception, 31, 985, 10.1068/p3335 · DOI
  7. Clutterbuck, 2004, Matching as an index of face familiarity, Visual Cognition, 11, 857, 10.1080/13506280444000021 · DOI
  8. Davis, 2009, CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482, 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hancock, 2000, Recognition of unfamiliar faces, Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 330, 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hayes, 2008, Understanding and reducing the knowledge effect: Implications for writers, Written Communication, 25, 104, 10.1177/0741088307311209 · DOI
  11. Holmes, 1968, Dimensions of projection, Psychological Bulletin, 69, 248, 10.1037/h0025725 · DOI
  12. Jenkins, 2011, Stable face representations, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1671, 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
  13. Johnston, 2009, Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review, Memory, 17, 577, 10.1080/09658210902976969 · DOI
  14. Kelley, 1996, Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment, Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157, 10.1006/jmla.1996.0009 · DOI
  15. Kemp, 1997, When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 211, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
  16. Klatzky, 1984, Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces, Memory and Cognition, 12, 60, 10.3758/BF03196998 · DOI
  17. Krueger, 1994, The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596, 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.596 · DOI
  18. Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Memory & Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Megreya, 2008, Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364
  21. Nickerson, 1987, Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know?, Acta Psychologica, 64, 245, 10.1016/0001-6918(87)90010-2 · DOI
  22. Ross, 1977, The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279, 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X · DOI · Paper page
  23. Schweinberger, 2002, Human brain potential correlates of repetition priming in face and name recognition, Neuropsychologia, 20, 2057, 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00050-7 · DOI
  24. White, 2014, Passport Officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE, 9, e103510, 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ritchie, K. L., Smith, F. G., Jenkins, R., Bindemann, M., White, D., & Burton, A. M.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
141
Pages
161-169
ISSN
0010-0277
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.002
Cited by
64
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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