CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice

Papesh, Megan H.·2018·Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0110-yPMC PMC6019409
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1186/s41235-018-0110-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • None of these studies included facial examiners.

    “However, none of these studies included facial examiners.”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) identify Papesh’s participants as notaries, bank tellers, and undergraduate students—not facial examiners. That supports the statement for this study, but the paper cannot establish that none of the other studies meant by “these studies” included examiners; its Background describes a separate study that did include forensic facial identification examiners. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Participants in these studies were facial reviewers-non-specialist facial image comparison practitioners who perform fast, high-volume face identifications (e.g. at border control).

    “Instead, participants in these studies were facial reviewers–non-specialist facial image comparison practitioners who perform fast, high-volume face identifications (e.g. at border control).”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Conclusions identify notaries and bank tellers as occupational identity verifiers without formal image-comparison training. But the study also included undergraduate students, and the Abstract (Background) says its test had no time constraints. The paper does not establish that all participants performed fast, high-volume identifications or worked at border control. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous studies have examined the relationship between the length of time employed in a professional role and face identification accuracy to understand the role of on-the-job learning.

    “However, previous studies have examined the relationship between the length of time employed in a professional role and face identification accuracy to understand the role of on-the-job learning [9, 10, 27, 28].”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

  • These studies all show no improvement with more professional experience, suggesting that on-the-job learning in these particular roles does not help develop expertise.

    “These studies all show no improvement with more professional experience, suggesting that on-the-job learning in these particular roles does not help develop expertise.”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Alenezi, H. M., & Bindemann, M. (2013). The effect of feedback on face-matching accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2968 . · DOI · Paper page
  2. Andrews, S., Jenkins, R., Cursiter, H., & Burton, A. M. (2015). Telling faces together: Learning new faces through exposure to multiple instances. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2041–2050. · DOI
  3. Baker, K. A., Laurence, S., & Mondloch, C. J. (2017). How does a newly encountered face become familiar? The effect of within-person variability on adults’ and children’s perception of identity. Cognition, 161, 19–30. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Biggs, A. T., Cain, M. S., Clark, K., Darling, E. F., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Assessing visual search performance differences between transportation security administration officers and nonprofessional visual searchers. Visual Cognition, 21, 330–352. · DOI
  5. Biggs, A. T., & Mitroff, S. R. (2014). Different predictors of multiple-target search accuracy between nonprofessional and professional visual searchers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1335–1348. · DOI
  6. Biggs, A. T., & Mitroff, S. R. (2015). Differences in multiple-target visual search performance between nonprofessional and professional searchers due to decision-making criteria. British Journal of Psychology, 106, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12096 . · DOI
  7. Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Blackwell, K. (2010). Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378–386.
  8. Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Rakow, T. (2012). Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029635 . · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40, 625–627. · DOI
  10. Bobak, A. K., Dowsett, A. J., & Bate, S. (2016). Solving the border control problem: Evidence of enhanced face matching in individuals with extraordinary face recognition skills. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148148. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Boutet, I., & Faubert, J. (2006). Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 34, 854–864. · DOI
  12. Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01795.x . · DOI
  13. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339–360.
  14. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 305–327.
  15. Burton, A. M. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1467–1485. · DOI
  16. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 . · DOI · Paper page
  17. Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10, 243–248. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1146–1152. · DOI
  19. Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482–505. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Dowsett, A. J., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Face learning with multiple images leads to fast acquisition of familiarity for specific individuals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1–10. · DOI
  21. Drew, T., Vo, M. L.-H., Olwal, A., Jacobson, F., Seltzer, S. E., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Scanners and drillers: Characterizing expert visual search through volumetric images. Journal of Vision, 13, 1–13. · DOI
  22. Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., & Davies, G. M. (1979). Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: Some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception, 8, 431–439. · DOI
  23. Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Fysh, M. C., & Bindemann, M. (2017). The Kent face matching test. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12260 . · DOI · Paper page
  25. Golladay, K., & Holtfreter, K. (2017). The consequences of identity theft victimization: An examinations of emotional and physical health outcomes. Victims & Offenders, 12, 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1177766 . · DOI
  26. Harrell, E., & Langton, L. (2013). Victims of identity theft, 2012 (NCJ 243779). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  27. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). The effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986–1004.
  28. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.8.5)
  29. Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323. · DOI
  30. Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards, and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 211–222. · DOI
  31. Klatzky, R. L., & Forrest, F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces. Memory & Cognition, 12, 60–70. · DOI
  32. Kokje, E., Bindemann, M., & Megreya, A. M. (2018). Cross-race correlations in the abilities to match unfamiliar faces. Acta Psychologica, 185, 13–21. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Konar, Y., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2013). Effects of aging on face identification and holistic face processing. Vision Research, 88, 38–46. · DOI
  34. Kundel, H. L., & La Follette Jr., P. S. (1972). Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. Radiology, 103, 523–528. · DOI
  35. Manning, D., Ethell, S., Donovan, T., & Crawford, T. (2006). How do radiologists do it? The influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. Radiography, 12, 134–142. · DOI
  36. McCaffery, J. M., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Passport checks: Interactions between matching faces and biographical details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 925–933. · DOI · Paper page
  37. McNab, F., Zeidman, P., Rutledge, R. B., Smittenaar, P., Brown, H. R., Adams, R. A., & Dolan, R. J. (2015). Age-related changes in working memory and the ability to ignore distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 6515–6518. · DOI
  38. Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Havard, C. (2011). Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks. Acta Psychologica, 137, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 . · DOI · Paper page
  39. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces aren’t faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175–1184. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364–372.
  42. Meinhardt-Injac, B., Persike, M., & Meinhardt, G. (2014). Holistic processing and reliance on global viewing strategies in older adults’ face perception. Acta Psychologica, 151, 155–163. · DOI
  43. Menon, N., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2015a). Variation in photos of the same face drives improvements in identity verification. Perception, 44, 1332–1341. · DOI
  44. Menon, N., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2015b). Identity-level representations affect unfamiliar face matching performance in sequential but not simultaneous tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1777–1793. · DOI
  45. Nodine, C. F., Kundel, H. L., Lauver, S. C., & Toto, L. C. (1996). Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Academic Radiology, 3, 1000–1006. · DOI
  46. O’Toole, A. J., Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1998). Stimulus-specific effects in face recognition over changes in viewpoint. Vision Research, 38, 2351–2363. · DOI
  47. Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2014). Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1335–1349. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Park, D. C., Polk, T. A., Park, R., Minear, M., Savage, A., & Smith, M. R. (2004). Aging reduces neural specialization in ventral visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 13091–13095. · DOI
  49. Patterson, K. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 406–417.
  50. Reingold, E. M., & Charness, N. (2005). Perception in chess: Evidence from eye movements. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance, (pp. 325–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  51. Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Science, 12, 48–55. · DOI
  52. Ritchie, K. L., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Learning faces from variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 897–905. · DOI
  53. Royer, J., Blais, C., Barnabé-Lortie, V., Carré, M., Leclerc, J., & Fiset, D. (2016). Efficient visual information for unfamiliar face matching despite viewpoint variations: It’s not in the eyes! Vision Research, 123, 33–40. · DOI
  54. Russell, R., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 252–257. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Shah, P., Sowden, S., Gaule, A., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2015). The 20 item prosopagnosia index (PI20): Relationship with the Glasgow face-matching test. Royal Society Open Science, 2(11), 150305. · DOI
  56. Smith, M. L., Volna, B., & Ewing, L. (2016). Distinct information critically distinguishes judgments of face familiarity and identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1770–1779.
  57. Spitz, J., Put, K., Wagemans, J., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2016). Visual search behaviors of association football referees during assessment of foul play situations. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 1–11.
  58. Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., … Matzke, D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57. · DOI
  59. White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., Matheson, M., & Burton, A. M. (2014). Passport officers’ errors in face matching. PLoS One, 9, e103510. · DOI · Paper page
  60. White, D., Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Hill, M., & O’Toole, A. J. (2015). Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1814), 20151292. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wood, B. P. (1999). Visual expertise. Radiology, 211, 1–3. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Papesh, M. H.
ORCID
Papesh, Megan H.
Venue
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-06-27
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2365-7464
DOI
10.1186/s41235-018-0110-y
PMC
PMC6019409
Cited by
17
References
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD075800-03)

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