CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Feature instructions improve face-matching accuracy

Megreya, Ahmed M., Bindemann, Markus·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0193455PMC PMC5854257
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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0193455

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.

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?

  • Training effects for unfamiliar face matching show dissociations: instructions to attend to some features improve match trials, while attention to other features improves mismatch trials.

    “Similar dissociations are seen in training effects for unfamiliar face matching, where instructions to attend to some features (e.g., the eyebrow regions) yields improved performance on match trials (Megreya & Bindemann, 2018), while increased attention to other features (e.g., facial marks such as moles and blemishes) improves performance on mismatch trials (Towler et al., 2021).”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Megreya & Bindemann, 2018

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: 44

  1. PJB Hancock, 2000, Recognition of unfamiliar faces, Trends Cog Sci, 4, 330, 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9 · DOI · Paper page
  2. AM Burton, 2011, The Oxford handbook of face perception, 287
  3. RA Johnston, 2009, Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: A review, Memory, 17, 577, 10.1080/09658210902976969 · DOI
  4. M Bindemann, 2010, Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification, J Exp Psychol Appl, 16, 378, 10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
  5. AM Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behav Res Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  6. AM Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Mem & Cognit, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  7. R 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
  8. 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
  9. D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE, 9, e103510, 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 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
  11. KL Ritchie, 2017, Learning faces from variability, Q J Exp Psychol, 70, 897, 10.1080/17470218.2015.1136656 · DOI
  12. S Andrews, 2015, Telling faces together: Learning new faces through exposure to multiple instances, Q J Exp Psychol, 68, 2041, 10.1080/17470218.2014.1003949 · DOI
  13. BE Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, J Exp Psychol Appl, 23, 138, 10.1037/xap0000114 · DOI · Paper page
  14. DJ Robertson, 2015, From policing to passport control: The limitations of photo ID, Keesing: The Journal of Documents and Identity, 46, 3
  15. HM Alenezi, 2013, The effect of feedback on face matching accuracy, Appl Cognitive Psych, 27, 735, 10.1002/acp.2968 · DOI · Paper page
  16. D White, 2014, Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychon B Rev, 21, 100, 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3 · DOI · Paper page
  17. M Bindemann, 2011, Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person, Perception, 40, 625, 10.1068/p7008 · DOI
  18. N Menon, 2015, Variation in photos of the same face drives improvements in identity verification, Perception, 44, 1332, 10.1177/0301006615599902 · DOI
  19. D White, 2014, Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance, J Exp Psychol Appl, 20, 166, 10.1037/xap0000009 · DOI
  20. AJ Dowsett, 2015, Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform individuals and provide a route to training, Br J Psychol, 106, 433, 10.1111/bjop.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  21. D White, 2013, Crowd effects in unfamiliar face matching, Appl Cognitive Psych, 27, 769, 10.1002/acp.2971 · DOI · Paper page
  22. AM Burton, 2013, Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability, Q J Exp Psychol, 66, 1467, 10.1080/17470218.2013.800125 · DOI
  23. AM Burton, 2005, Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages, Cogn Psychol, 51, 256, 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.003 · DOI
  24. AM Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Percept Psychophys, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  25. RGM Armann, 2016, A familiarity disadvantage for remembering specific images of faces, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 42, 571, 10.1037/xhp0000174 · DOI
  26. Y Konar, 2010, Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy, Psychol Sci, 21, 38, 10.1177/0956797609356508 · DOI
  27. A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, J Exp Psychol Appl, 23, 47, 10.1037/xap0000108 · DOI · Paper page
  28. C Coin, 1997, Encoding activity and face recognition, Memory, 5, 545, 10.1080/741941479 · DOI
  29. PG Schyns, 2002, Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the use of visual information, Psychol Sci, 13, 402, 10.1111/1467-9280.00472 · DOI
  30. J Sadr, 2003, The role of eyebrows in face recognition, Perception, 32, 285, 10.1068/p5027 · DOI
  31. A Abaza, 2013, A survey on ear biometrics, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 45, 22, 10.1145/2431211.2431221 · DOI · Paper page
  32. CA Meissner, 2001, Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review, Psychol Public Policy Law, 7, 3, 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3 · DOI · Paper page
  33. AM Megreya, 2009, Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect, Perception, 38, 1831, 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
  34. AM Megreya, 2011, The other race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task, Q J Exp Psychol, 64, 1473, 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
  35. C Michel, 2006, Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces, Vis Cogn, 14, 55, 10.1080/13506280500158761 · DOI
  36. C Michel, 2006, Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race, Psychol Sci, 17, 608, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01752.x · DOI
  37. JW Tanaka, 1993, Parts and wholes in face recognition, Q J Exp Psychol, 46A, 225, 10.1080/14640749308401045 · DOI
  38. J Tanaka, 2004, A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study, Cognition, 93, B1, 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011 · DOI
  39. PJ Hills, 2013, Eye-tracking the own-race bias in face recognition: Revealing the perceptual and socio-cognitive mechanisms, Cognition, 129, 586, 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.012 · DOI
  40. PJ Hills, 2013, Removing the own-race bias in face recognition by attentional shift using fixation crosses to diagnostic features: An eye-tracking study, Vis Cogn, 21, 876, 10.1080/13506285.2013.834016 · DOI
  41. N Abudarham, 2016, Reverse engineering the face space: Discovering the critical features for face identification, J Vis, 16, 40, 10.1167/16.3.40 · DOI
  42. 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
  43. AM Burton, 2016, Identity from variation: Representations of faces derived from multiple instances, Cogn Sci, 40, 202, 10.1111/cogs.12231 · DOI
  44. R Jenkins, 2011, Variability in photos of the same face, Cognition, 121, 313, 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Megreya, A. M., & Bindemann, M.
ORCID
Megreya, Ahmed M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-03-15
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
e0193455
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0193455
PMC
PMC5854257
Cited by
36
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP9-272-5-033)

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