The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching
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?
Face age only affected accuracy in target present trials, both here and in previous work, and so does not account for the equivalent error rates observed in target absent arrays.
“However, face age only affected accuracy in target present trials, both here and in previous work [17, 23], and so does not account for the equivalent error rates we observed in target absent arrays.”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
The Photo-to-Photo Test describes older photos and official ID photos as its comparison conditions. Its Results report a significant effect of photo type on mismatch trials—the equivalent of target-absent trials—contrary to the claim that the effect was confined to target-present trials. The citing authors’ own observation of equivalent error rates in their arrays is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredError-rates in tests of unfamiliar face identification typically average 20-30% for both novices and trained practitioners.
“Error-rates in tests typically average 20–30% for both novices and trained practitioners [5–9].”
From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
The Photo-to-Photo Test Results report 70.9% accuracy on match trials (29.1% errors), with similar performance for passport officers and students. The Glasgow Face Matching Test Results also report 79.2% accuracy for officers (20.8% errors), close to the 81.3% population norm. But officers averaged only 10% errors on the Person-to-Photo Test, so this paper does not establish 20–30% as the typical average across tests. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredParticipants 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 [9]
The Participants section identifies passport officers who routinely compare people and photographs with ID images, supporting the description of practitioners who perform face identifications. But the Introduction describes them as having specialist training and experience, and the study places them at a passport office, not border control. The copy does not establish that their ordinary work involves fast, high-volume identifications; the ten-second limit in the Person-to-Photo Test describes an experimental task. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFace aging caused poorer performance compared to similar tasks where images were taken on the same day.
“To account for this, and consistent with recent work [17, 23] we suggest that face aging caused poorer performance compared to similar tasks where images were taken on the same day [12].”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
The Photo-to-Photo Test section says age-related changes affect matching accuracy, and its Results report poor performance when matching newer images to older photos. The Glasgow Face Matching Test section describes a same-day-image task, but the paper does not establish that aging caused poorer performance than on that task; the tasks were not directly compared for this effect. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year.
“Previous research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year [17, 22, 23] and so we expected error rates to be higher than in similar test using images taken on the same day [12].”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
The Photo-to-Photo Test introduction (page unavailable) says age-related changes in appearance have a large effect on matching accuracy. Its Results report poorer matching for some older ID photos, but the paper does not report a 20% increase in errors or establish a threshold of more than one year; it tested photos taken two years apart and ID photos of uncertain age. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Facial Review staff perform many face matching decisions per day but check FR candidate lists as part of eligibility checks; they typically receive a small amount of training when commencing employment.
“Facial review staff perform many face matching decisions per day, but check FR candidate lists as part of a series of eligibility checks that make up the majority of processing. These passport officers have typically received a small amount of training when commencing employment, and perform a similar role to passport officers tested in previous studies of face matching ability [17].”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
The Participants section describes passport officers whose main responsibility was assessing eligibility, who routinely made face comparisons, and of whom all but three had completed a short training module. The Discussion says they made many face-matching decisions in their daily workflow. The paper does not describe Facial Review staff checking FR candidate lists or establish that training occurred when employment commenced. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHumans are notoriously poor at identifying unfamiliar faces.
“This lack of empirical validation for facial image comparison training courses is particularly concerning because humans are notoriously poor at identifying unfamiliar faces.”
From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
In a live photo-to-person identity verification task, passport officers accepted 14% of fraudulent ID documents and rejected 6% of valid IDs.
“In a live photo-to-person identity verification task for example, passport officers accepted 14% of fraudulent ID documents and rejected 6% of valid IDs [9].”
From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
Given that so few of the training courses reviewed here made reference to the difficulty of unfamiliar face identification, ineffective training could strengthen people's misplaced confidence in their ability to accurately judge the identity of unfamiliar faces.
“Given that so few of the training courses reviewed here made reference to the difficulty of unfamiliar face identification (e.g., [9, 10]), ineffective training could strengthen people’s misplaced confidence in their ability to accurately judge the identity of unfamiliar faces.”
From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
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 [9]
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 [9]
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 [9]
Passport officers are no better than the general population on unfamiliar face matching tasks.
“It is worth noting, for example, that passport officers are no better than the general population on such tasks (White et al., 2014).”
From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as White et al., 2014
Passport officers with extensive experience in face matching were no more accurate than university students on tasks modeling their daily duties.
“Despite extensive experience in face matching, these staff were no more accurate than a group of university students—on tasks that modeled decisions encountered in their daily duties.”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
Studies reported here and in previous work show large and stable individual differences in face matching accuracy that are unrelated to length of professional experience.
“Studies reported here and in previous work show large and stable individual differences in face matching accuracy that are unrelated to length professional experience [15, 17, 32].”
From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [17]
Face matching performance declines when task demands are increased, such as when viewpoint varies between the two images or there are long time periods between image captures.
“and when task demands are increased (e.g., viewpoint varies in the two images: Estudillo & Bindemann, 2014; or there are long time periods between the two image captures: White et al., 2014).”
From Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls (2020) · cites this paper as White et al., 2014
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: 17
- V Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, J Exp Psychol Appl, 5, 339, 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
- AM Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Mem Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
- AM Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behav Res Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
- RI Kemp, 1997, When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud, Appl Cognitive Psych, 11, 211, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199706)11:3<211::AID-ACP430>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI
- JP Davis, 2009, CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock, Appl Cognitive Psych, 23, 482, 10.1002/acp.1490 · DOI · Paper page
- AM Megreya, 2008, Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory), J Exp Psychol Appl, 14, 364, 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
- AM Burton, 1999, Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance, Psychol Sci, 10, 243, 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
- P Hancock, 2000, Recognition of unfamiliar faces, Trends Cog Sci, 4, 330, 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
- R Jenkins, 2011, Stable face representations, Philos T Roy Soc B, 366, 1671, 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
- MM Woodhead, 1979, On training people to recognize faces, Ergonomics, 22, 333, 10.1080/00140137908924617 · DOI · Paper page
- Towler A, White D, Kemp RI (2014) Evaluating training methods for facial image comparison: The face shape strategy does not work. Perception: 43, 214–218. · DOI · Paper page
- D White, 2014, Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychon B Rev, 21, 100, 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3 · DOI · Paper page
- AM Megreya, 2013, Matching Face Images Taken on the Same Day or Months Apart: the Limitations of Photo ID, Appl Cognitive Psych, 27, 700, 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
- R Russell, 2009, Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability, Psychon B Rev, 16, 252, 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252 · DOI · Paper page
- AM Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Percept Psychophys, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
- T Susilo, 2013, Advances in developmental prosopagnosia research, Curr Opin Neurobiol, 23, 423, 10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.011 · DOI
- JB Wilmer, 2010, Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable, P Natl Acad Sci USA, 107, 5238, 10.1073/pnas.0913053107 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.007 · Cited by 235
Self-citationError 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
Self-citationDo 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
Self-citationThinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., et al. (2017) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 · Cited by 95
Self-citationFace morphing attacks: Investigating detection with humans and computers
Kramer, R. S. S., Mireku, M. O., Flack, T. R., & Ritchie, K. L. (2019) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0181-4 · Cited by 48
Psychophysical Evaluation of Human Performance in Detecting Digital Face Image Manipulations
Nichols, R., Rathgeb, C., Drozdowski, P., & Busch, C. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3160596 · Cited by 16
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
Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14
Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls
Bate, S., Bennetts, R., Murray, E., & Portch, E. (2020) · i-Perception · doi:10.1177/2041669520944420 · Cited by 12
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
Metadata
- Authors
- White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., Matheson, M., & Burton, A. M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-08-18
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e103510
- ISSN
- 1932-6203
- PMC
- PMC4136722
- Cited by
- 241
- 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