The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 45 of the 85 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Do professional facial image comparison training courses work?
Open accessAbstract
Facial image comparison practitioners compare images of unfamiliar faces and decide whether or not they show the same person. Given the importance of these decisions for national security and criminal investigations, practitioners attend training courses to improve their face identification ability. However, these courses have not been empirically validated so it is unknown if they improve accuracy. Here, we review the content of eleven professional training courses offered to staff at national security, police, intelligence, passport issuance, immigration and border control agencies around the world. All reviewed courses include basic training in facial anatomy and prescribe facial feature (or 'morphological') comparison. Next, we evaluate the effectiveness of four representative courses by comparing face identification accuracy before and after training in novices (n = 152) and practitioners (n = 236). We find very strong evidence that short (1-hour and half-day) professional training courses do not improve identification accuracy, despite 93% of trainees believing their performance had improved. We find some evidence of improvement in a 3-day training course designed to introduce trainees to the unique feature-by-feature comparison strategy used by facial examiners in forensic settings. However, observed improvements are small, inconsistent across tests, and training did not produce the qualitative changes associated with examiners' expertise. Future research should test the benefits of longer examination-focussed training courses and incorporate longitudinal approaches to track improvements caused by mentoring and deliberate practice. In the absence of evidence that training is effective, we advise agencies to explore alternative evidence-based strategies for improving the accuracy of face identification decisions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper reviews eleven professional facial image comparison training courses and empirically evaluates four representative courses. It finds that short courses do not improve face identification accuracy, while a 3-day course produces small, inconsistent improvements without the qualitative markers of examiner expertise.
Key findings
- Across 11 reviewed courses, all taught facial anatomy and encouraged facial feature or “morphological” comparison; only two courses mentioned error-rates and only one cited empirical research to support training material.
- Short courses A, B, and C did not improve accuracy: online Courses A/B showed no significant Training × Test interactions (all F < 1; ηp² = .00–.02), with Bayesian evidence 33–111 times more likely under the null; half-day Course C also showed no significant interactions (GFMT: F(1, 244) = 1.48, p > .05, ηp² = .01; others F < 1), with Bayesian evidence 5–14 times more likely under the null.
- Despite no accuracy improvement, 93% of Course C trainees believed training had improved their identification accuracy, compared with 31% of controls.
- The 3-day Course D showed significant improvement on a modified GFMT (F(1, 47) = 4.69, p < .05, ηp² = .09; post-training accuracy 93%) and on the inversion test (F(1, 48) = 4.11, p < .05, ηp² = .08), but not on the casework test (F < 1, ηp² = .02; post-training accuracy 72% vs. 71% for controls) and did not produce qualitative expertise changes (feature-rating AUC interaction F < 1; three-way inversion effect F < 1).
Methods
- Content review: 11 facial reviewer training courses from government agencies in Australia, Finland, the UK, and USA plus a private biometrics company were classified against FISWG guidelines plus additional criteria, totaling 86 criteria, by two raters as “not at all,” “briefly,” or “in detail.”
- Training evaluations: pre- to post-test designs with control groups. Online Courses A/B used 90 Australian undergraduate psychology students (30 per condition); half-day Course C used 204 Australian government facial image comparison practitioners (mean 7 years in role) plus 42 Amazon Mechanical Turk controls; 3-day Course D used 32 UK police/civilian trainees plus 20 British undergraduate controls.
- Tests included the Glasgow Face Matching Test, GBU-unlimited and GBU-4 seconds, High-to-Low and High-to-High image quality tests, a casework test, a feature rating task, and an inversion test. Accuracy was analyzed with ANOVA using Training as a between-subjects factor and Test as a within-subjects factor, focusing on the Training × Test interaction, with complementary Bayesian analyses.
Limitations
- The paper states that the content review did not have access to course material ordinarily delivered verbally by instructors, and that the evaluation approach was not designed to capture mentoring, feedback, deliberate practice, or longitudinal on-the-job learning.
- The paper states that some Course D data files were corrupt and could not be analyzed, with exact sample sizes per test in supplementary materials; it also notes that Course D improvements were small, inconsistent across tests, and not accompanied by qualitative markers of facial examiner expertise.
- Evident from the text: only four of the eleven reviewed courses were empirically evaluated; control groups differed from trainees in age, occupation, and recruitment source (undergraduates or MTurk workers vs. practitioners), and there was no long-term follow-up to track training or on-the-job development.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
45 of 85 cited sources checked · 29 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recruiting people with natural aptitude in face identification tasks [37, 38]”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [37] T Balsdon, 2018, Improving face identification with specialist teams, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that selecting high performers using face-identification tests improved accuracy by about 7%, a gain the authors describe as modest rather than substantial. The Background also cautions that the stronger performance of existing specialist teams cannot be attributed to recruitment alone because their selection and training processes are not documented. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Supportedcites [38] AK Bobak, 2016, Solving the border control problem: Evidence of enhanced face matching in individuals with extraordinary face recognition skills, PLoS ONE source
The Results (Glasgow Face Matching Test and Models Face Matching Test; pages unavailable) report significantly higher accuracy for selected super-recognisers than for both control groups. On the more difficult Models Face Matching Test, their mean accuracy was 82.5%, versus 64.46% and 69.80% for the controls, supporting the claim in the context of laboratory face-matching tasks. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Disputed
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, none of these studies included facial examiners.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
The Participants section identifies the study participants as passport officers, and the Photo-to-Photo Test and Glasgow Face Matching Test sections likewise describe passport officers and, where applicable, students. No facial examiners are identified among the participants in the studies reported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Disputedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 2 (Method) explicitly includes seven specialist Facial Examiners as participants. Its Results compare their performance with facial review staff and students. Thus, if this paper is one of “these studies,” the claim that none included facial examiners is contrary to our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites [27] MH Papesh, 2018, Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] BE Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“and their accuracy was less impaired when face images were presented upside down compared to novices [20, 22].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Discussion (section 3) explicitly states that inverting images impaired examiners less than students. The Abstract likewise reports that experts were less impaired by image inversion than non-expert students, supporting the cited comparison with novices. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, these possibilities do not account for the qualitative differences observed in their performance in previous work [20, 22].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Partly supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies qualitative differences in forensic examiners’ performance and says they suggest a contribution from differences in cognitive processing. It also says motivation alone has limited explanatory power, but does not establish that all the unspecified ‘possibilities’ cannot account for those differences. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, the superior accuracy experienced by facial examiners is typically accompanied by qualitative differences in their performance.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Results report that examiners were more accurate than controls and students across the tests. The Discussion identifies two qualitative differences in their performance, including a stronger advantage at longer exposures and a different response to image inversion. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Error-rates in tests typically average 20–30% for both novices and trained practitioners [5–9].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] V Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Partly supportedcites [6] AM Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behavior Research Methods sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening discussion reports 20–30% errors in some unfamiliar-face array tests, but gives a broader range of 10–25% for paired-face tests. The GFMT results report about 10% mean errors on the full test and about 19% on the short test. No passage establishes a typical 20–30% error rate for trained practitioners. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] RI Kemp, 1997, When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud, Applied Cognitive Psychology source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] V Bruce, 2001, Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Partly supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“It is also consistent with the fact that facial examiners—who receive extensive training in feature comparison—tend to outperform novices (e.g., [20, 22–24]).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Introduction describes the examiners as having rigorous training, and the Discussion says professional training emphasizes feature-by-feature comparison. The Results report that examiners outperformed controls and untrained students across the tests. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [23] PJ Phillips, 2018, Face recognition accuracy in forensic examiners, super-recognisers and algorithms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source
The Abstract describes forensic facial examiners as extensively trained professionals who compare facial identities. The Discussion reports that examiners were more accurate than the student control group (median AUC 0.93 versus 0.68). (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] K Norell, 2015, The effect of image quality and forensic expertise in facial image comparisons, Journal of Forensic Sciences source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, these experts also show qualitative differences in their performance: extracting more diagnostic identity information from facial features than novices [20], and showing smaller face inversion effects [20, 22] (see S3 Appendix for details of the inversion effect).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Discussion (section 3) states that inverting images impaired examiners less than students. The Abstract likewise reports that experts were less impaired by inversion than non-expert students, supporting the claimed smaller face inversion effect relative to novices. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This lack of empirical validation for facial image comparison training courses is particularly concerning because humans are notoriously poor at identifying unfamiliar faces.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] V Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [6] AM Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behavior Research Methods source
The introduction (section “P S”) says people find matching images of unfamiliar faces surprisingly difficult, with error rates of 10%–25%. The General Discussion likewise describes unfamiliar-face matching as a surprisingly difficult task, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] RI Kemp, 1997, When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud, Applied Cognitive Psychology source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] V Bruce, 2001, Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
The Introduction states that viewers are poor at matching photos of unfamiliar faces, even when high-quality photos are shown side by side. The Discussion reports that trained passport officers also performed poorly, supporting the citing sentence’s broad point about unfamiliar-face identification. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Recent studies show that facial examiners are more accurate than novices on face identification tasks [20, 22–24].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Results report that forensic facial examiners were more accurate than controls and untrained students across all three face-matching tests. The Discussion adds that examiners always performed statistically better than students, supporting the comparison with novices. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [23] PJ Phillips, 2018, Face recognition accuracy in forensic examiners, super-recognisers and algorithms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source
The Abstract reports that forensic facial examiners were more accurate than control groups on a challenging face-identification test. The Discussion likewise reports higher median accuracy for facial examiners than for students. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] K Norell, 2015, The effect of image quality and forensic expertise in facial image comparisons, Journal of Forensic Sciences source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesEvery source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Supporting this, research by Dowsett and Burton [25] shows that working collaboratively on facial comparison decisions with high-performing individuals improves the accuracy of low-performers in subsequent tests.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [25] AJ Dowsett, 2014, Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform individuals and provide a route to training, British Journal of Psychology source
The General Discussion reports that low performers improved on a subsequent individual face-matching task after working in pairs, compared with their baseline accuracy. It also describes pairing people who are good at face matching with those who are less accurate as a route to training. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says Facial Review staff make many face-matching decisions per day and receive only a small amount of training. But Experiment 2 > Method also includes specialist Facial Examiners and untrained controls, so not all participants were facial reviewers. The staff worked in passport issuance; the paper does not identify border control as their setting or say their decisions were fast. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [27] MH Papesh, 2018, Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] BE Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In general, people have very little insight into their own face identification ability [31–34]”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] M Bindemann, 2014, Perceived ability and actual recognition accuracy for unfamiliar and famous faces, Cogent Psychology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General discussion reports that people’s ability judgements poorly predicted their performance identifying unfamiliar faces. But the Introduction states that observers could predict their ability to recognize famous faces, so the source does not support the claim without that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Could not verifycites [32] R Palermo, 2017, Do people have insight into their face recognition abilities?, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passage gives the paper’s title and authors, but no finding about how accurately people judge their own face-identification ability. Searches for poor insight and for relationships between self-rated and measured face-recognition ability returned only bibliographic material or no matching passage, so the claim cannot be verified from the available passages. (LLM, conf=0.68)
- Partly supportedcites [33] AK Bobak, 2018, Facing the facts: Naive participants have only moderate insight into their face recognition and face perception abilities, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that young adults have only moderate insight into their face recognition and perception abilities, which supports the claim that insight is limited. But “very little” overstates that finding, and the paper notes that people who have received feedback on exceptional performance can estimate their ability more precisely. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] M Bindemann, 2012, Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“and combinations of humans and face recognition algorithms [23] have all been shown to produce substantial boosts to accuracy.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [23] PJ Phillips, 2018, Face recognition accuracy in forensic examiners, super-recognisers and algorithms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source
The Results section (“Fusing Humans and Machines”) reports that combining a facial examiner with algorithm A2017b achieved a median AUC of 1.0 and outperformed combining two examiners. The Discussion says that fusing the most accurate machine with individual examiners produced more accurate decisions than any pair of human or machine judges. The benefit varied by algorithm, but the cited claim does not say every combination improved accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“statistical aggregation of judgments made by multiple people [39, 40]”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [39] D White, 2013, Crowd effects in unfamiliar face matching, Applied Cognitive Psychology source
The Discussion reports substantial accuracy gains from averaging independent raters’ similarity judgments, including about a 5% improvement from aggregating two people’s responses. The paper establishes this effect for unfamiliar face matching, the task it studied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] G Jeckeln, 2018, Wisdom of the social versus non-social crowd in face identification, British Journal of Psychology source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“and tend to believe they are better at the task than they really are [35].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] KL Ritchie, 2015, Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining the photo-ID paradox, Cognition source
The Introduction states that success with familiar faces can lead people to believe falsely that they are also good at recognizing unfamiliar faces. This supports the claim that people overestimate their face-identification ability. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find very strong evidence that short (1-hour and half-day) professional training courses do not improve identification accuracy, despite 93% of trainees believing their performance had improved.”
- Also stated in: § General discussion · boosted
“We found overwhelming evidence that short training courses (Courses A, B and C) do not improve face identification accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § General discussion · boosted
“Of the six pre- to post-training comparisons in the online and half-day training course evaluations, involving both novices (n = 132) and genuine trainees (n = 204), we found no significant improvements in accuracy after training and very strong support for the null hypothesis that short training courses do not improve face identification accuracy.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § General discussion · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We therefore found no evidence that Course C improves identification accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation · boosted
“These analyses provide between ‘moderate’ and ‘very strong’ evidence in support of the null hypothesis, i.e. that Course C does not improve face identification accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
“These analyses provide further evidence that Course C does not improve face identification accuracy.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simple main effects analyses confirmed a significant benefit of training for Course D trainees [F(1, 47) = 5.47, p < .05] but not for the control group [F<1].”
- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
“Course D trainees showed significant improvements on a modified version of the GFMT and the inversion test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many courses also encourage a feature classification strategy, whereby facial features are classified according to predetermined categories (e.g., round, square, diamond face shapes), and identity judgments are based on the agreement of classifications (see [17] for an evaluation of this strategy).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian analyses of the Training x Test interactions revealed the observed data are between 5 and 14 times more likely to occur when Course C does not improve accuracy compared to when it does.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian analyses of the Training x Test interactions for previously untrained participants revealed the observed data are between 4 and 13 times more likely to occur when Course C does not improve accuracy compared to when it does.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All reviewed courses include basic training in facial anatomy and prescribe facial feature (or ‘morphological’) comparison.”
- Also stated in: § Review of current training course content · plain
“All courses teach facial anatomy, describing the morphology of facial features, such as the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, face shape and facial marks (see Fig 1, top left).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Review of current training course content · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than half of Course C trainees reported having previously received training in facial image comparison.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did find some evidence of accuracy improvement in Course D.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To determine if previous training diluted the interaction effect we repeated the analyses above including only those who had not received prior training (n = 99), but the interactions between Training and Test for these participants were also non-significant [GFMT: F<1, ƞp2 = .00; High-to-Low: F(1, 139) = 2.17, p > .05, ƞp2 = .02; High-to-High: F<1, ƞp2 = .00].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no evidence that Course D produced changes in these qualitative measures of facial image comparison expertise.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All reviewed courses include basic training in facial anatomy and prescribe facial feature (or ‘morphological’) comparison.”
- Also stated in: § Review of current training course content · plain
“All courses encourage a facial feature comparison strategy or ‘morphological comparison’, whereby practitioners are directed to break the face down into its parts and compare the similarity of individual facial features (see Fig 1, top centre).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Review of current training course content · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, observed improvements are small, inconsistent across tests, and training did not produce the qualitative changes associated with examiners’ expertise.”
- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
“In addition, Course D did not produce the qualitative changes associated with expertise in facial image comparison: increased diagnosticity of facial feature similarity ratings and a reduced inversion effect [20, 22].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
In the paper
“Only two courses (J and K) include reference to scientific studies of error-rates in novice and/or professional groups, and Course D is the only course to cite empirical evidence to support some of the training material [20].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction between Training and Test was non-significant [F<1, ƞp2 = .02], indicating that Course D did not improve identification accuracy on comparisons representative of forensic casework.”
- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · boosted
“Bayesian analysis of the Training x Test interaction revealed the observed data are 12 times more likely to occur when Course D does not improve accuracy compared to when it does, providing ‘strong’ evidence in support of the null hypothesis, i.e. that Course D does not improve face identification accuracy on the casework test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Course D therefore did not improve trainees’ ability to extract diagnostic identity information from facial features.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that most training courses are presented face-to-face and delivered on a single day.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fewer than half of the reviewed courses state that face identification is difficult despite overwhelming empirical evidence that it is.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction between Orientation, Training and Test was non-significant [F<1, ƞp2 = .00], indicating equivalent inversion effects for Course D trainees and control participants.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simple main effects analyses revealed a significant improvement pre- to post-training for Course D trainees [F(1, 48) = 21.42, p < .001] but not for the control participants [F(1, 48) = 1.35, p > .05].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find some evidence of improvement in a 3-day training course designed to introduce trainees to the unique feature-by-feature comparison strategy used by facial examiners in forensic settings.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complementary Bayesian analyses of the Training x Test interactions revealed the observed data are between 33 and 111 times more likely to occur when Courses A and B do not improve accuracy compared to when they do.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Online training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, observed improvements are small, inconsistent across tests, and training did not produce the qualitative changes associated with examiners’ expertise.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most courses describe principles of photography, noting how image capture conditions affect a person’s appearance.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, despite neither course improving accuracy, 93% of Course C trainees believed they had improved as a result of training, compared to 31% of the control group.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, observed improvements are small, inconsistent across tests, and training did not produce the qualitative changes associated with examiners’ expertise.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“despite 93% of trainees believing their performance had improved.”
- Also stated in: § Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
“Interestingly, despite neither course improving accuracy, 93% of Course C trainees believed they had improved as a result of training, compared to 31% of the control group.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian analysis of the Training x Test interaction revealed the observed data are 12 times more likely to occur when Course D does not improve accuracy compared to when it does, providing ‘strong’ evidence in support of the null hypothesis, i.e. that Course D does not improve face identification accuracy on the casework test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction between Training and Test was non-significant [F<1, ƞp2 = .00], indicating that feature similarity ratings were equally diagnostic of identity for the Course D trainees as the control participants.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only two courses (J and K) include reference to scientific studies of error-rates in novice and/or professional groups, and Course D is the only course to cite empirical evidence to support some of the training material [20].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Course D trainees’ performance on the GFMT post-training was however still far from perfect (93%), despite optimal conditions for matching (see [6]).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“By far the most common way to mitigate these risks is for practitioners to attend training courses to improve their ability [1].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Prince J. To examine emerging police use of facial recognition systems and facial image comparison procedures—Israel, Netherlands, UK, USA, Canada 2012. https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/2012_Prince_Jason.pdf.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Importantly, these experts also show qualitative differences in their performance: extracting more diagnostic identity information from facial features than novices [20], and showing smaller face inversion effects [20, 22] (see S3 Appendix for details of the inversion effect).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“The only published evaluation of a professional facial image comparison training course was conducted in the 1970’s by psychologists Woodhead, Baddeley, and Simmonds [4].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] MM Woodhead, 1979, On training people to recognize faces, Ergonomics source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In light of our results, it is likely that the superior accuracy of facial examiners reported in previous work may be due to some factor other than the formal training courses they attend.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The training courses evaluated in the study are among the formal training courses that facial examiners attend.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is striking that there is very little connection between these courses and behavioural studies of face identification performance.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“In previous work, examiners’ ratings of facial feature similarity were more diagnostic of identity [20]”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Surprisingly, the trained group did not outperform the untrained group on any of these tests.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] MM Woodhead, 1979, On training people to recognize faces, Ergonomics source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Official guidelines for the content of facial image comparison training courses exist (see [2, 3] and S1 Appendix), but it is unclear to what extent agencies adhere to them.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Facial Identification Scientific Working Group. Guidelines and recommendations for facial comparison training to competency (Version 1.1) 2011. https://fiswg.org/FISWG_Training_Guidelines_Recommendations_v1.1_2010_11_18.pdf.
- Not checked yetcites [3] NA Spaun, 2009, Advances in Biometrics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“The accuracy improvements observed in Course D are consistent with previous work showing that feature-by-feature comparison improves face identification accuracy in novices [20].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Although the effectiveness of facial image comparison training courses may have improved considerably in the decades since Woodhead et al.’s study, we know of no validation tests that have been conducted since.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] MM Woodhead, 1979, On training people to recognize faces, Ergonomics source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Passport officers made errors on more than 50% of decisions—the same rate as untrained novices.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One source
Experiment 2 Results report 48.1% accuracy for facial review staff, or 51.9% errors, compared with 47.6% accuracy for untrained students; the difference was not significant. The claim applies to the facial review officers, not the specialist facial examiners, who performed substantially better. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Facial examiners are a specialist group of facial image comparison practitioners who conduct slow, systematic, feature-based comparisons, often as part of criminal investigations (see [20, 22, 23]).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
The Introduction describes trained forensic facial examiners making identity judgements used in criminal investigations and trials. The Discussion describes their professional training as emphasizing feature-by-feature comparison and characterizes their expertise as controlled and effortful analysis, supporting the paraphrase of slow, systematic comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [23] PJ Phillips, 2018, Face recognition accuracy in forensic examiners, super-recognisers and algorithms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper describes forensic facial examiners as extensively trained professionals whose image comparisons are rigorous and time-consuming, and whose decisions can support prosecutions and court testimony. Materials and Methods says they used their laboratory tools and methods. Our copy does not establish that their comparisons are specifically feature-based, so that part of the attributed description is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
The Person-to-Photo Test Results report that passport officers wrongly accepted 14% of fraudulent photos and wrongly rejected 6% of valid photos. The Participants and stimuli section identifies this as a live identification task with ID-card bearers. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In addition, Course D did not produce the qualitative changes associated with expertise in facial image comparison: increased diagnosticity of facial feature similarity ratings and a reduced inversion effect [20, 22].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] A Towler, 2017, Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
- Partly supportedcites [22] D White, 2015, Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (section 3; page unavailable) reports that image inversion impaired forensic examiners less than students, supporting the reduced-inversion-effect example of expertise. It does not report facial-feature similarity ratings or evaluate Course D. The Course D finding appears to be the citing authors’ own result, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“More generally, training is also accepted as evidence of expertise in court [11], allowing ‘trained experts’ to present highly persuasive identification evidence at trial [12].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Supreme Court of the United States; 1993.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [12] A Towler, 2018, Are forensic scientists experts?, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition source
The citation [11] attaches to the first clause, about courts accepting training as evidence of expertise. The paper’s Abstract (page not provided) says that a common legal exception permits opinion evidence based on specialised knowledge acquired through training, study, or experience, allowing forensic scientists to testify as experts. The later claim about persuasive identification evidence is attached to [12], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Differences in the availability of ongoing on-the-job training and opportunities for deliberate practice (see [29]) may explain why facial examiners tend to outperform facial reviewers [10, 23].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] KA Ericsson, 1993, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychological Review source
- Supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One source
The citation to this source supports the comparison between facial examiners and facial reviewers; the parenthetical citation [29] is attached to the proposed explanation. Experiment 2 Results reports significantly fewer misidentifications among examiners than reviewers, and the General Discussion reports that examiners made 20% fewer errors as a group. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [23] PJ Phillips, 2018, Face recognition accuracy in forensic examiners, super-recognisers and algorithms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source
The Results (Accuracy; page unavailable) report higher median accuracy for facial examiners (AUC 0.93) than facial reviewers (0.87), supporting the performance comparison attributed to this source. The paper also says the difference between face-specialist groups was not statistically significant. The proposed training-and-practice explanation is separately directed to reference [29], not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Facial reviewers do not typically have the same opportunities for mentoring, feedback and extensive practice as facial examiners, and tend to rely completely on training courses like those reviewed here.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similarly, mentors provide examiners with feedback on the accuracy of their decisions and feature-based analysis, which may also facilitate learning [19].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] D White, 2014, Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experiment 1 section describes trial-by-trial feedback on face-matching decisions, and the General Discussion reports that feedback training improved accuracy and may have directed attention to diagnostic facial features. The paper does not describe mentors providing feedback to examiners on their feature-based analyses; that setting and form of feedback are not established by the study. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The Glasgow Face Matching Test (GFMT) is a standardised psychometric test of face matching ability [6].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Online training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] AM Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behavior Research Methods source
The Abstract describes the GFMT as a test of unfamiliar face matching and says the authors provide normative data from large subject samples. The Test Construction section specifies its fixed set of face pairs, supporting its description as a standardised test of face-matching ability. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
The Person-to-Photo Test Results say the authors tested whether passport officers’ duration of professional experience predicted face-matching performance; they found no relationship. The Discussion interprets the finding in terms of whether experience alone improves accuracy, matching the claim’s on-the-job learning rationale. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One source
In Experiment 2 Results (page not specified), the authors correlate years employed at the Australian Passport Office with face-matching accuracy and report no significant relationship. The General Discussion considers how workplace experience might affect performance, consistent with the claim’s on-the-job-learning framing. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [27] MH Papesh, 2018, Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications source
The Background states that the study correlated face-matching performance with occupational experience measures, including years of on-the-job experience. The Conclusions report that yearly experience had no detectable effect on identity-verification performance. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] BE Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] D White, 2014, Passport officers’ errors in face matching, PLoS ONE source
The Discussion states that, across all experiments, length of employment as a passport officer did not predict face-matching accuracy. It interprets this as strong evidence that experience alone does not improve accuracy in that role, supporting the claim’s suggestion about on-the-job learning. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Partly supportedcites [10] D White, 2015, Error rates in users of automatic face recognition software, PLoS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 2 Results report no relationship between years employed and face-matching accuracy for either facial review staff or facial examiners. But the General Discussion says examiners may have developed better strategies through feedback and working with specialists, so the finding does not establish that on-the-job learning does not help develop expertise. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [27] MH Papesh, 2018, Photo ID verification remains challenging despite years of practice, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications source
The Conclusions report that notaries and bank tellers performed similarly to students despite years of on-the-job identity-verification experience, and that weekly and yearly experience showed no effect. The paper also reports a similar finding for passport officials and concludes that passive occupational experience does not benefit unfamiliar face matching; it distinguishes this from dedicated training. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] BE Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performance on the casework test was also notably low, with Course D trainees achieving just 72% accuracy after training—comparable to novice control participants who achieved 71%.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Genuine trainees (n = 32) showed small but significant improvements in accuracy on a modified version of the GFMT and the inversion test, but not on the casework test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The casework test most closely approximated the task trainees are required to perform in daily work.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“providing no evidence that Courses A and B improve face identification accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § Online training course evaluation · boosted
“These analyses provide between ‘very strong’ and ‘extreme’ evidence in support of the null hypothesis, i.e. that Courses A and B do not improve face identification accuracy.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Online training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Online training course evaluation · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“All courses include practical exercises and provide feedback on the accuracy of facial comparison decisions to trainees (see [19]).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The improvements observed in Course D were small, inconsistent across tests and not accompanied by qualitative markers of expertise in facial examination.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is especially important because our results show that 93% of Course C trainees believed they had improved as a result of training, despite this training not improving accuracy.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The casework test is representative of forensic facial examination casework and was supplied by Course D’s host agency (see Methods for details).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The FISWG guidelines do not make reference to empirical research supporting the validity of the recommended training practices, so adherence to the guidelines provides no evidence that a particular training course is effective.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Review of current training course content
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paper provides the first comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of professional facial image comparison training courses.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This is despite short courses being used routinely by government agencies around the world and complying with FISWG training guidelines (see S1 Appendix).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites S1 Appendix
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The courses evaluated here were representative of accepted practice in facial image comparison training, and so results are likely to be indicative of the effectiveness of professional training courses more generally.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These qualitative differences appear to reflect a greater reliance on feature-level details when comparing face images.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that people do not have insight into the effectiveness of facial image comparison training, and that perceived benefit of training is unrelated to its actual benefit.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Course D trainees had not previously seen the images in the casework test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, these courses have not been empirically validated so it is unknown if they improve accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § Background · hedged
“The only published evaluation of a professional facial image comparison training course was conducted in the 1970’s by psychologists Woodhead, Baddeley, and Simmonds [4].”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] MM Woodhead, 1979, On training people to recognize faces, Ergonomics source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Background · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all tests, we split items into two sets of equal difficulty using accuracy data from previous studies so that equivalent versions could be administered at pre- and post-test.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Evaluation of the effectiveness of current training courses
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We created two equally difficult 20-item versions (10 match, 10 non-match) of the High-to-High and High-to-Low image quality tests. Allocation of each version to pre- and post-training was counterbalanced across participants.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some trainees’ data files were corrupt and could not be analysed.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test order was randomised for each participant.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Half-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two versions were randomly assigned to the upright and inverted blocks at pre- and post-training for each participant.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order of the GBU-unlimited and GBU-4 seconds was counterbalanced across participants, but held constant pre- to post-training.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Online training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Following Towler, White and Kemp [17], the GFMT was split into two equally difficult 20-item versions (10 match, 10 non-match). Allocation of each version to the pre- and post-training was counterbalanced across participants.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Online training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] A Towler, 2014, Evaluating training methods for facial image comparison: The face shape strategy does not work, Perception source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an effort to equate motivation between the groups, the highest-performing control participant across the pre- and post-training tests received an additional £50 Amazon voucher.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task order was randomised for each participant, but held constant pre- to post-training.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We created four equally difficult 30-item versions (15 match, 15 non-match) using human performance data from O’Toole, An, Dunlop, and Natu [41]. Allocation of each version to the pre- or post-training and GBU-unlimited and GBU-4 seconds was counterbalanced across participants.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Online training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] AJ O’Toole, 2012, Comparing face recognition algorithms to humans on challenging tasks, ACM Transactions on Applied Perception source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, facial examiners’ training also includes extensive on-the-job mentoring from more senior analysts, which may be critical in developing their expertise.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] AJ Dowsett, 2014, Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform individuals and provide a route to training, British Journal of Psychology source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test had not been previously seen by trainees. We created two equally difficult versions of the test, consisting of 24 trials each (12 match, 12 non-match).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One version of the casework test was always administered at pre-training, and always as the last test, as it formed the basis of a pre-existing feedback training module.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The two equally difficult halves of the GFMT used in the previous evaluations were adapted to exclude identities used in the Cambridge Face Memory Test—Australian (see [42]). One version of this modified GFMT contained 17-items (9 match, 8 non-match) and the other contained 18-items (10 match, 8 non-match). Test version order was randomly allocated to pre- and post-training for each participant.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] E McKone, 2011, Face ethnicity and measurement reliability affect face recognition performance in developmental prosopagnosia: Evidence from the Cambridge Face Memory Test–Australian, Cognitive Neuropsychology source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To equate the groups’ experience as much as possible, control participants completed the pre-training tests on Day 1 and mock training on Days 2 and 3.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We removed 10 image pairs from the model image set that were used in a pre-existing facial feature analysis exercise during training (see S3 Appendix for details of this exercise). We then created four equally difficult versions, each containing 12 trials (6 match, 6 non-match).”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > 3-day face-to-face training course evaluation
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Training courses were classified as having met each criterion either ‘not at all’, ‘briefly’ or ‘in detail’ by two raters. Disagreement between the raters was resolved by joint review of the material.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Review of current training course content
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our approach to evaluating the effectiveness of training courses was not designed to capture these sources of learning.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > General discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ninety Australian undergraduate psychology students (Mean age = 19 years, SD = 3 years) participated in return for course credit. They were randomly allocated to one of three conditions, such that 30 participants were in each.”
§ Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? > Methods > Online training course evaluation
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 30Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
In many organisations, attending a facial image comparison training course is taken as evidence of competency.
“In many organisations, attending a facial image comparison training course is taken as evidence of competency.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The courses evaluated here qualify practitioners within their own organisations to make critical identification decisions in police, intelligence and national security operations, at borders, and when issuing secure identity documents.
“The courses we evaluate here qualify practitioners within their own organisations to make critical identification decisions in police, intelligence and national security operations, at borders, and when issuing secure identity documents (e.g., passports).”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is unclear to what extent agencies adhere to official guidelines for facial image comparison training.
“but it is unclear to what extent agencies adhere to them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Very little is known about professional facial image comparison training.
“However, very little is known about this training.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The casework test most closely approximated the task trainees are required to perform in daily work.
“the task that most closely approximated the task trainees are required to perform in daily work”
The paper relies on this without support.
Facial reviewers do not typically have the same opportunities for mentoring, feedback and extensive practice as facial examiners, and tend to rely completely on training courses like those reviewed here.
“Facial reviewers do not typically have the same opportunities for mentoring, feedback and extensive practice as facial examiners, and tend to rely completely on training courses like those reviewed here.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The training courses evaluated in the study are among the formal training courses that facial examiners attend.
“the formal training courses they attend”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A recent study on the performance of informal training courses on facial comparison suggested that there are large discrepancies between courses in improvement of facial examiner expertise [134].”
From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [134]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 244) = 1.48reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .225
“F(1, 244) = 1.48, p > .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 139) = 2.17reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .143
“F(1, 139) = 2.17, p > .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 4.69reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .035
“F(1, 47) = 4.69, p < .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 47) = 5.47reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .024
“F(1, 47) = 5.47, p < .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.11reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .048
“F(1, 48) = 4.11, p < .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 48) = 21.42reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 48) = 21.42, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 48) = 1.35reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .251
“F(1, 48) = 1.35, p > .05”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Inversion test has conflicting trial counts
MinorThe 3-day course evaluation describes the inversion test as having 24 items, but its Methods section lists 36 trials for the same test.
“we included an inversion test to measure the face inversion effect using a 24-item pairwise matching test consisting of images of male models presented upright or inverted [25]”
“participants also completed the feature rating task (60 trials) and an inversion test (36 trials).”
Citations
Cites
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“Differences in the availability of ongoing on-the-job training and opportunities for deliberate practice (see [29]) may explain why facial examiners tend to outperform facial reviewers [10, 23].”
BackgroundMurray, D. D., Suzuki, K., Law, M. G., Trebicka, J., Neuhaus, J., Wentworth, D. N., Johnson, M. A., Vjecha, M. J., Kelleher, A. D., Emery, S., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139981 · Cited by 2,740
Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method
Cousineau, D. (2005) · Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042 · Cited by 1,868
Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward
Policy, L. (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · Cited by 964
The Glasgow Face Matching Test
Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.42.1.286 · Cited by 472
Self-citationFace recognition accuracy of forensic examiners, superrecognizers, and face recognition algorithms
Phillips, P. J., Yates, A. N., Hu, Y., Hahn, C. A., Noyes, E., Jackson, K., Cavazos, J. G., Jeckeln, G., Ranjan, R., Sankaranarayanan, S., et al. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1721355115 · Cited by 461
Self-citationVerification of face identities from images captured on video.
Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.5.4.339 · Cited by 333
Self-citationPassport officers’ errors in face matching
White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., Matheson, M., & Burton, A. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · Cited by 241
Self-citationMatching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images
Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.7.3.207 · Cited by 233
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-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Surgical face masks impair human face matching performance for familiar and unfamiliar faces
Carragher, D. J., & Hancock, P. (2020) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00258-x · Cited by 167
Individual differences and the multidimensional nature of face perception
White, D., & Burton, A. M. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00041-3 · Cited by 74
Self-citationSuper-Recognizers – a novel diagnostic framework, 70 cases, and guidelines for future work
Ramon, M. (2021) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107809 · Cited by 73
GFMT2: A psychometric measure of face matching ability
White, D., Guilbert, D., Varela, V. P. L., Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01638-x · Cited by 66
Self-citationDiverse types of expertise in facial recognition
Towler, A., Dunn, J. D., Castro Martínez, S., Moreton, R., Eklöf, F., Ruifrok, A., Kemp, R. I., & White, D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28632-x · Cited by 30
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Towler, A., Kemp, R. I., Burton, A. M., Dunn, J. D., Wayne, T., Moreton, R., & White, D.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- University of York (GB)
- Metropolitan Police Service (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Towler, Alice
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-02-13
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0211037
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6373902
- OpenAlex
- W2912087339
- Semantic Scholar
- 82c38addb7da183d2a910c5c688df37c50ce217c
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 8.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
- UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government
- Australian Research Council (LP110100448, LP160101523)
- FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (323262)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Keywords
- face identification, professional training programs, training effectiveness, comparative morphology, National Security Agency, police, border control, identification accuracy, deliberate practice
- MeSH terms
- Education, Professional, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Police
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
