CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Kent Face Matching Test

Fysh, Matthew C., Bindemann, Markus·2018·British Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjop.12260
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study presents the Kent Face Matching Test ( KFMT ), which comprises 200 same‐identity and 20 different‐identity pairs of unfamiliar faces. Each face pair consists of a photograph from a student ID card and a high‐quality portrait that was taken at least three months later. The test is designed to complement existing resources for face‐matching research, by providing a more ecologically valid stimulus set that captures the natural variability that can arise in a person's appearance over time. Two experiments are presented to demonstrate that the KFMT provides a challenging measure of face matching but correlates with established tests. Experiment 1 compares a short version of this test with the optimized Glasgow Face Matching Test ( GFMT ). In Experiment 2, a longer version of the KFMT , with infrequent identity mismatches, is correlated with performance on the Cambridge Face Memory Test ( CFMT ) and the Cambridge Face Perception Test ( CFPT ). The KFMT is freely available for use in face‐matching research.

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 · 10.1111/bjop.12260

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.

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?

  • Facial comparison accuracy and data quality are directly correlated.

    “Facial comparison accuracy and data quality are, thus, directly correlated [95,96], especially in terms of individual accuracy variation across multiple analysts [97] and individual analyst ability overestimation [98].”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Accuracy section (page unavailable) reports 80% accuracy on the GFMT’s optimised images versus 66% on the more variable KFMT images. The General Discussion attributes the KFMT’s greater difficulty to variability in its face photographs. This supports an association between image conditions and accuracy, but the paper does not establish a direct correlation between data quality and accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.1002/acp.2968 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.7717/peerj.1184 · DOI
  3. 10.1098/rsos.160321 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/acp.2970 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
  6. 10.1037/a0029635 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1177/2041669516672219 · DOI
  8. 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
  9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148148 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/acp.3170 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1161059 · DOI
  12. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/bjop.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1080/02643290701380491 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001 · DOI
  16. 10.1068/i0669 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jenkins R., 2008, Limitations in facial identification: The evidence, Justice of the Peace, 172, 4
  18. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
  19. 10.1002/acp.3281 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 · DOI
  24. Robertson D., 2015, From policing to passport control, Keesing Journal of Documents & Identity, 3
  25. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150036 · DOI
  26. 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1002/acp.3218 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1177101 · DOI
  29. 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1173076 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fysh, M. C., & Bindemann, M.
Affiliations
School of Psychology University of Kent Canterbury UK
ORCID
Fysh, Matthew C.
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-05
Volume
109
Issue
2
Pages
219-231
ISSN
  • 0007-1269
  • 2044-8295
DOI
10.1111/bjop.12260
Cited by
118
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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