Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Unfamiliar Face Matching With Frontal and Profile Views

Kramer, Robin S. S., Reynolds, Michael G.·2018·Perception

Abstract

Research has systematically examined how laboratory participants and real-world practitioners decide whether two face photographs show the same person or not using frontal images. In contrast, research has not examined face matching using profile images. In Experiment 1, we ask whether matching unfamiliar faces is easier with frontal compared with profile views. Participants completed the original, frontal version of the Glasgow Face Matching Test, and also an adapted version where all face pairs were presented in profile. There was no difference in performance across the two tasks, suggesting that both views were similarly useful for face matching. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether matching unfamiliar faces is improved when both frontal and profile views are provided. We compared face matching accuracy when both a frontal and a profile image of each face were presented, with accuracy using each view alone. Surprisingly, we found no benefit when both views were presented together in either experiment. Overall, these results suggest that either frontal or profile views provide substantially overlapping information regarding identity or participants are unable to utilise both sources of information when making decisions. Each of these conclusions has important implications for face matching research and real-world identification development.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0301006618756809

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?

  • The advantage of displaying only internal features was limited to the most difficult trials only and failed to generalise to a card sorting task.

    “However, this advantage was limited to the most difficult trials only and failed to generalise to a card sorting task (Kramer et al., 2018).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Kramer et al., 2018

  • External features (hair, facial outline, etc.) contain less identity information.

    “given that the external features (hair, facial outline, etc.) contain less identity information (Kramer et al., 2018).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Kramer et al., 2018

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Baddeley A., 1983, Evaluating witness evidence, 125
  2. 10.1002/acp.2970 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148148 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/acp.3170 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1111/bjop.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1068/i0669 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1126/science.1149656 · DOI
  12. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/acp.3239 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1002/acp.3261 · DOI
  16. 10.1167/15.4.1 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00164-0 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/acp.2350010108 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/a0024356 · DOI
  20. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150036 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.024 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.visres.2016.12.014 · DOI
  26. 10.1037/xap0000009 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/acp.2971 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kramer, R. S. S., & Reynolds, M. G.
Affiliations
  • School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK; Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of York, UK
  • Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada
Venue
Perception
Published
2018-02-05
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
414-431
ISSN
  • 0301-0066
  • 1468-4233
Cited by
19
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