The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding face matching
Abstract
Many security settings rely on the identity matching of unfamiliar people, which has led this task to be studied extensively in Cognitive Psychology. In these experiments, observers typically decide whether pairs of faces depict one person (an identity match) or two different people (an identity mismatch). The visual similarity of the to-be-compared faces must play a primary role in how observers accurately resolve this task, but the nature of this similarity–accuracy relationship is unclear. The current study investigated the association between accuracy and facial similarity at the level of individual items (Experiments 1 and 2) and facial features (Experiments 3 and 4). All experiments demonstrate a strong link between similarity and matching accuracy, indicating that this forms the basis of identification decisions. At a feature level, however, similarity exhibited distinct relationships with match and mismatch accuracy. In matches, similarity information was generally shared across the features of a face pair under comparison, with greater similarity linked to higher accuracy. Conversely, features within mismatching face pairs exhibited greater variation in similarity information. This indicates that identity matches and mismatches are characterised by different similarity profiles, which present distinct challenges to the cognitive system. We propose that these identification decisions can be resolved through the accumulation of convergent featural information in matches and the evaluation of divergent featural information in mismatches.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
There is tentative evidence that the match-mismatch dissociation in face matching might be driven by similar biases to those that attenuate the mirror effect.
“There is tentative evidence that the match-mismatch dissociation in face matching might be driven by similar biases to those that attenuate the mirror effect.”
From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Fysh & Bindemann, 2023
Biases at the stimulus level of matching tasks might merely reflect that some face pairs are easier than others, reflecting similarity of faces depicted.
“Thus, biases at the stimulus level of matching tasks, might merely reflect that some face pairs are just easier than others, reflecting the similarity of the faces depicted (e.g., Fysh & Bindemann, 2023; for similar effects shown by somewhat increasing the distinctiveness of faces see McIntyre et al., 2013).”
From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Fysh & Bindemann, 2023
Performance for match and mismatch trials is typically unrelated or correlated negatively.
“Contrary to this reasoning, performance for match and mismatch trials is typically unrelated or correlated negatively, whereby observers who are good at making one type of identification (e.g., that a face pair is an identity match) are poor at another (e.g., that a face pair is a mismatch; Fysh & Bindemann, 2023;Megreya & Burton, 2007;Sauerland et al., 2016).”
From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Fysh & Bindemann, 2023
Variability in criterion can explain why match and mismatch performance and old/new performance are often uncorrelated in behavioural experiments.
“Collectively, this can explain why match and mismatch performance and old/new performance is often uncorrelated in behavioural experiments (e.g., Fysh & Bindemann, 2023;Megreya & Burton, 2007;Megreya et al., 2011;Sauerland et al., 2016).”
From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Fysh & Bindemann, 2023
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
Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.007 · Cited by 235 · cited 1×
“This knowledge gap is important as face identification proceeds along a continuum (see, for example, Burton, 2013; Jenkins & Burton, 2011; Kramer et al., 2018; Young & Burton, 2018).”
BackgroundDo professional facial image comparison training courses work?
Towler, A., Kemp, R. I., Burton, A. M., Dunn, J. D., Wayne, T., Moreton, R., & White, D. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211037 · Cited by 111
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 76
- Abudarham N., Shkiller L., Yovel G. (2019). Critical features for face recognition. Cognition, 182, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcognition.2018.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1167/16.3.40 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.2968 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7717/peerj.1184 · DOI
- 10.1037/bul0000072 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0016368 · DOI
- 10.1093/scan/nsu150 · DOI
- 10.1186/s41235-018-0116-5 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3525 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837749.003.0006 · DOI
- 10.1098/rsos.160321 · DOI
- 10.1037//0003-066X.35.2.176 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837749.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.2970 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837749.003.0006 · DOI
- 10.1177/2041669516672219 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.07.010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.1983.0065 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x · DOI
- 10.1080/17470218.2013.800125 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02367.x · DOI
- 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03210319 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000513 · DOI
- 10.1016/0028-3932(94)90041-8 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01477.x · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645 · DOI
- Fysh M. C., 2017, Face processing: Systems, disorders and cultural differences, 1
- 10.1098/rsos.170249 · DOI
- 10.1111/bjop.12260 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03198438 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.546 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.21 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.005 · DOI
- 10.1186/s41235-018-0115-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3281 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0193455 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/bjop.12318 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101260 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837749.003.0006 · DOI
- 10.1037/lhb0000272 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 · DOI
- 10.1037/xap0000156 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.06.001 · DOI
- 10.1212/WNL.57.7.1168 · DOI
- 10.1080/026432999380799 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333 · DOI
- 10.1037/xhp0000400 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797613492986 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0037004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/acp.3449 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0173319 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rstb.1992.0007 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.107.2.206 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3218 · DOI
- 10.1080/14640749308401045 · DOI
- 10.1037/xlm0000972 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1068/p7676 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/xap0000108 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/2041669519863077 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.2971 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837749.003.0006 · DOI
- 10.1037/xap0000114 · DOI · Paper page
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fysh, M. C., & Bindemann, M.
- Affiliations
- School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-06-17
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 862-880
- ISSN
- 1747-0218
- 1747-0226
- PMC
- PMC10031636
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- economic and social research council (ES/S010181/1)
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