The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unfamiliar Face Matching With Driving Licence and Passport Photographs
Abstract
Matching two different images of an unfamiliar face is difficult, although we rely on this process every day when proving our identity. Although previous work with laboratory photosets has shown that performance is error-prone, few studies have focussed on how accurately people carry out this matching task using photographs taken from official forms of identification. In Experiment 1, participants matched high-resolution, colour face photos with current UK driving licence photos of the same group of people in a sorting task. Averaging 19 mistaken pairings out of 30, our results showed that this task was both difficult and error-prone. In Experiment 2, high-resolution photographs were paired with either driving licence or passport photographs in a typical pairwise matching paradigm. We found no difference in performance levels for the two types of ID image, with both producing unacceptable levels of accuracy (around 75%–79% correct). The current work benefits from increased ecological validity and provides a clear demonstration that these forms of official identification are ineffective and alternatives should be considered.
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?
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 [96]
Citations
Cites
Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software
White, D., Dunn, J. D., Schmid, A. C., & Kemp, R. I. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139827 · Cited by 141
Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children
Kramer, R. S. S., Mulgrew, J., & Reynolds, M. G. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.5010 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- 10.1002/acp.2970 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0148148 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1068/p5789 · DOI
- 10.1068/i0669 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/bjop.12260 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2015.12.013 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3261 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3281 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13506285.2013.832451 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.001 · DOI
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.109 · DOI
- 10.1111/bjop.12141 · DOI
- 10.1037/xap0000114 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions
Bacci, N., Davimes, J. G., Steyn, M., & Briers, N. (2021) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology10121269 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Kramer, R. S. S., Mohamed, S., & Hardy, S. C.
- Affiliations
- School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK
- School of Psychology/Lincoln Institute for Health, University of Lincoln, UK
- ORCID
- Kramer, Robin S. S.
- Venue
- Perception
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-184
- ISSN
- 0301-0066
- 1468-4233
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- experimental psychology society (Small Grant)
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