The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnostic feature training improves face matching accuracy.
Abstract
Identifying unfamiliar faces is surprisingly error-prone, even for experienced professionals who perform this task regularly. Previous attempts to train this ability have been largely unsuccessful, leading many to conclude that face identity processing is hard-wired and not amenable to further perceptual learning. Here, we take a novel expert knowledge elicitation approach to training, based on the feature-based comparison strategy used by high-performing professional facial examiners. We show that instructing novices to focus on the facial features that are most diagnostic of identity for these experts-the ears and facial marks (e.g., scars, freckles and blemishes)-improves accuracy on unfamiliar face matching tasks by 6%. This training takes just 6 min to complete and yet accounts for approximately half of experts' superiority on the task. Benefits of training are strongest when diagnostic features are clearly visible and absent when participants are trained to rely on nondiagnostic features. Our data-driven approach contrasts with theory-driven training that is designed to improve holistic face processing mechanisms associated with familiar face recognition. This suggests that protocols which bypass the core face recognition system-and instead reorient attention to features that are undervalued by novices-offer a more promising route to training for unfamiliar face matching. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Training effects for unfamiliar face matching show dissociations: instructions to attend to some features improve match trials, while attention to other features improves mismatch trials.
“Similar dissociations are seen in training effects for unfamiliar face matching, where instructions to attend to some features (e.g., the eyebrow regions) yields improved performance on match trials (Megreya & Bindemann, 2018), while increased attention to other features (e.g., facial marks such as moles and blemishes) improves performance on mismatch trials (Towler et al., 2021).”
From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Towler et al., 2021
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A criterion-placement theory of face matching
Baker, K. A., Mondloch, C. J., Hancock, P. J. B., & Bindemann, M. (2026) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106319 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Towler, A., Keshwa, M., Ton, B., Kemp, R. I., & White, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1288-1298
- ISSN
- 1939-1285
- 0278-7393
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (LP130100702; LP160101523)
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