CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 124

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

Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation

Megreya, Ahmed M., Burton, A. Mike·2007·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03193954
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/bf03193954

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • It is important to consider match and mismatch trials separately because previous research has found a dissociation between accuracies on these two trial types.

    “However, it was important to consider the match and mismatch trials separately because previous research has found a dissociation between accuracies on these two trial types (Megreya & Burton, 2007).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2007

  • Strong by-item correlations exist for matches and mismatches of familiar identities.

    “This finding is remarkable considering strong by-item correlations for matches and mismatches of familiar identities, whereby faces that are easier to recognise as an identity match are also easier to reject when they do not match another person (Megreya & Burton, 2007).”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2007

  • There is tentative evidence that the match-mismatch dissociation in face matching might be driven by similar biases to those that attenuate the mirror effect.

    “There is tentative evidence that the match-mismatch dissociation in face matching might be driven by similar biases to those that attenuate the mirror effect.”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2007

  • Old/new memory tasks that investigate face identification elicit a dissociation similar to that found in face matching tasks.

    “Second, it has long been observed that oldnew memory tasks that investigate face identification elicit a dissociation similar to that which is found in face matching tasks (e.g., Hancock et al., 1996aHancock et al., , 1996b;;Megreya & Burton, 2007;Vokey & Read, 1992).”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2007

  • Variability in criterion can explain why match and mismatch performance and old/new performance are often uncorrelated in behavioural experiments.

    “Collectively, this can explain why match and mismatch performance and old/new performance is often uncorrelated in behavioural experiments (e.g., Fysh & Bindemann, 2023;Megreya & Burton, 2007;Megreya et al., 2011;Sauerland et al., 2016).”

    From A criterion-placement theory of face matching (2026) · cites this paper as Megreya & Burton, 2007

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: 42

  1. Bruce, V. (1986). Influences of familiarity on the processing of faces.Perception,15, 387–397. · DOI
  2. Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., &Dench, N. (1994). What’s distinctive about a distinctive face?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 119–141. · DOI
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327. · DOI
  6. 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
  7. Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J. B., &White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages.Cognitive Psychology,51, 256–284. · DOI
  8. 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
  9. Clark, S. E., &Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups.Law & Human Behavior,29, 151–172. · DOI
  10. Criss, A. H., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Interactions between study task, study time, and the low-frequency hit rate advantage in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 778–786. · DOI
  11. Deffenbacher, K. A., Johanson, J., Vetter, T., &O’Toole, A. J. (2000). The face typicality-recognizability relationship: Encoding or retrieval locus?Memory & Cognition,28, 1173–1182. · DOI
  12. de Gelder, B., &Rouw, R.(2000). Paradoxical configuration effects for faces and objects in prosopagnosia.Neuropsychologia,38, 1271–1279. · DOI
  13. 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
  14. Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,13, 8–20. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16. · DOI
  16. Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., &Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory.Psychological Review,100, 546–567. · 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. Hockley, W. E., Hemsworth, D. H., &Consoli, A. (1999). Shades of the mirror effect: Recognition of faces with and without sunglasses.Memory & Cognition,27, 128–138. · DOI
  22. Joordens, S., &Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1534–1555. · DOI
  23. 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
  24. Klatzky, R. L., &Forrest, F. H. (1984). Recognizing familiar and unfamiliar faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 60–70. · 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. Maddox, W. T., &Estes, W. K. (1997). Direct and indirect stimulus-frequency effects in recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 539–559. · DOI
  28. Malmberg, K. J., &Nelson, T. O. (2003). The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,31, 35–43. · DOI
  29. 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
  30. McClelland, J. L., &Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory.Psychological Review,105, 724–760. · DOI
  31. Megreya, A. M., &Burton, A. M. (2006a). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one.Applied Cognitive Psychology,20, 957–972. · DOI
  32. Megreya, A. M., &Burton, A. M. (2006b). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task.Memory & Cognition,34, 865–876. · DOI · Paper page
  33. 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
  34. O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994) Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect.Memory & Cognition,22, 208–224. · DOI
  35. Reder, L. M., Angstadt, P., Cary, M., Erickson, M. A., &Ayers, M. S. (2002). A reexamination of stimulus-frequency effects in recognition: Two mirrors for low- and high-frequency pseudowords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 138–152. · DOI
  36. Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 294–320. · DOI
  37. Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 145–166. · DOI
  38. Sikström, S. (2004). The variance reaction time model.Cognitive Psychology,48, 371–421. · DOI
  39. 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
  40. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification?American Psychologist,48, 553–571. · DOI
  41. 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
  42. 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
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-10
Volume
69
Issue
7
Pages
1175-1184
ISSN
  • 0031-5117
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03193954
Cited by
124
References
1
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