Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluating Training Methods for Facial Image Comparison: The Face Shape Strategy Does Not Work

Towler, Alice, White, David, Kemp, Richard I·2014·Perception

Abstract

Human performance on unfamiliar face matching is known to be highly error prone. However, in organisations where staff are required to perform this task as part of their daily work, attempts are often made to mitigate risk by providing training. Importantly, the methods used in these training courses have not been subjected to empirical validation. In this study we evaluate a common component of many training programmes which encourages viewers to classify face shape. Our results show very low agreement in face shape classification, both within and between participants, and across repeated presentations of a single image to a single participant. Furthermore, face shape classification training did not improve face matching accuracy, suggesting that the face shape strategy does not facilitate identification.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1068/p7676

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Following Towler, White and Kemp [17], the GFMT was split into two equally difficult 20-item versions (10 match, 10 non-match), and allocation of each version to the pre- and post-training was counterbalanced across participants.

    “Following Towler, White and Kemp [17], the GFMT was split into two equally difficult 20-item versions (10 match, 10 non-match). Allocation of each version to the pre- and post-training was counterbalanced across participants.”
  • Some recommended methods have been shown to be ineffective in improving accuracy.

    “Indeed, some recommended methods have been shown to be ineffective in improving accuracy [41, 42].”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [42]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 10.1002/acp.2968 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1037/h0031619 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s00414-010-0446-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/978-3-642-01793-3_17 · DOI
  9. 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1080/00140137908924617 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Towler, A., White, D., & Kemp, R. I.
Affiliations
School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Venue
Perception
Published
2014-01-01
Volume
43
Issue
2-3
Pages
214-218
ISSN
  • 0301-0066
  • 1468-4233
Cited by
35
References
0
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