CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task

Megreya, Ahmed M., Burton, A. Mike·2006·Memory & Cognition
DOI 10.3758/bf03193433
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03193433

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The matching of facial identity across two simultaneously presented images is a notoriously difficult task, even under the simplest of circumstances.

    “The matching of facial identity across two simultaneously presented images is a notoriously difficult task, even under the simplest of circumstances (Burton et al., 2010; Megreya & Burton, 2006).”

    From Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls (2020) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2006

    The Abstract says that matching two images of an unfamiliar face is difficult even under good conditions, and that poor performance persists when people judge whether two images show the same person. But it contrasts this with very good performance for familiar faces; the claim omits the unfamiliar-face qualification. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous studies show that some people perform very well in face matching tasks while others perform very poorly, and that these individual differences are stable across tests.

    “This would be consistent with previous studies showing that some people perform very well in face matching tasks while others perform very poorly [15, 33, 34] and that these individual differences are stable across tests [33–35].”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Alexander, G. E., Mentis, M. J., Van Horn, J. D., Grady, C. L., Berman, K. F., Furey, M. L., et al. (1999). Individual differences in PET activation of object perception and attention systems predict face matching accuracy.NeuroReport,10, 1965–1971. · DOI
  2. Bartlett, J. C., &Searcy, J. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces.Cognitive Psychology,25, 281–316. · DOI
  3. Bruce, V. (1986). Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces.Perception,15, 387–397. · DOI
  4. Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., &Dench, N. (1994). What’s distinctive about a distinctive face?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 119–141. · DOI
  5. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J.B., Burton, A. M., &Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,5, 339–360. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., &Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,7, 207–218. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327. · DOI
  8. Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Hancock, P. J. B. (1999). From pixels to people: A model of familiar face recognition.Cognitive Science,23, 1–31. · DOI
  9. Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., &Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance.Psychological Science,10, 243–248. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Courtois, M. R., &Mueller, J. H. (1981). Target and distractor typicality in facial recognition.Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 639–645. · DOI
  11. de Gelder, B., &Rouw, R. (2000). Paradoxical configuration effects for faces and objects in prosopagnosia.Neuropsychologia,38, 1271–1279. · DOI
  12. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., &Harman, H. H. (1979). Cognitive factors: Their identification and replication.Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs,79, 3–84.
  13. Enns, J. T., &Shore, D. I. (1997). Separate influences of orientation and lighting in the inverted-face effect.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 23–31. · DOI
  14. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., &Tanaka, J. R. (1995). The inverted faces inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms.Vision Research,35, 2089–2093. · DOI
  15. Flin, R. H. (1985). Development of face recognition: An encoding switch?British Journal of Psychology,76, 123–134. · DOI
  16. Freire, A., Lee, K., &Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence.Perception,29, 159–170. · DOI
  17. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 330–337. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., &Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis.Memory & Cognition,24, 26–40. · DOI
  19. Haxby, J. V., Ungerleider, L. G., Clark, V. P., Schouten, J. L., Hoffman, E. A., &Martin, A. (1999). The effects of face inversion on activity in human neural system for face and object perception.Neuron,22, 189–199. · DOI
  20. Henderson, Z., Bruce, V., &Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching the faces of robbers captured on video.Applied Cognitive Psychology,15, 445–464. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children.Child Development,36, 609–628. · DOI
  22. Kemp, R., Towell, N., &Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud.Applied Cognitive Psychology,11, 211–222. · DOI
  23. Klatzky, R. L., &Forrest, F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 60–70. · DOI
  24. Lavrakas, P. J., Buri, J. R., &Mayzner, M. S. (1976). A perspective on the recognition of other-race faces.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 475–481. · DOI
  25. Lewis, M. B., &Johnston, R. A. (1997). Familiarity, target set, and false positives in face recognition.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,9, 437–459. · DOI
  26. Liu, C. H., Seetzen, H., Burton, A. M., &Chaudhuri, A. (2003). Face recognition is robust with incongruent image resolution: Relationship to security video images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,9, 33–41. · DOI
  27. Malone, D. R., Morris, H. H., Kay, M. C., &Levin, H. S. (1982). Prosopagnosia: A double dissociation between the recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry,45, 820–822. · DOI
  28. Messick, S., &Damarin, F. (1964). Cognitive styles and memory for faces.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,69, 313–318. · DOI
  29. Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., &Behrmann, M. (1997). What is special about face recognition? Nineteen experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,9, 555–604. · DOI
  30. Mueller, J. H., Bailis, K. L., &Goldstein, A. G. (1979). Depth of processing and anxiety in facial recognition.British Journal of Psychology,70, 511–515. · DOI
  31. Nowicki, S., Winograd, E., &Millard, B. A. (1979). Memory for faces: A social learning analysis.Journal of Research in Personality,13, 460–468. · DOI
  32. Rose, S. A., &Feldman, J. F. (1995). Prediction of IQ and specific cognitive abilities at 11 years from infancy measures.Developmental Psychology,31, 685–696. · DOI
  33. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., &Jankowski, J. J. (2003). Infant visual recognition memory: Independent contributions of speed and attention.Developmental Psychology,39, 563–571. · DOI
  34. Ryan, R. S., &Schooler, J. W. (1998). Whom do words hurt? Individual differences in susceptibility to verbal overshadowing.Applied Cognitive Psychology,12, 105–125. · DOI
  35. Schretlen, D. J., Pearlson, G. D., Anthony, J. C., &Yates, K. O. (2001). Determinants of Benton Facial Recognition Test performance in normal adults.Neuropsychology,15, 405–410. · DOI
  36. Sekuler, A. B., Gaspar, C. M., Gold, J. M., &Bennett, P. J. (2004). Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing.Current Biology,14, 391–396. · DOI
  37. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,75, 221–242. · DOI
  38. Tanaka, J. W., &Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 583–592. · DOI
  39. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,79, 471–491. · DOI
  40. Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., &Karp, S. A. (1974).Psychological differentiation: Studies of development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  42. Woodhead, M. M., &Baddeley, A. D. (1981). Individual differences and memory for faces, pictures, and words.Memory & Cognition,9, 368–370. · DOI
  43. Young, A. W., Hay, D. C., McWeeny, K. H., Flude, B. M., &Ellis, A. W. (1985). Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features.Perception,14, 737–746. · DOI
  44. Young, A. W., Newcombe, F., de Haan, E. H. F., Small, M., &Hay, D. C. (1993). Face perception after brain injury: Selective impairments affecting identity and expression.Brain,116, 941–959. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-06
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
865-876
ISSN
  • 0090-502X
  • 1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/bf03193433
Cited by
361
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review