CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35

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

Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected

Papesh, Megan H., Goldinger, Stephen D.·2014·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/s13414-014-0630-6PMC PMC4241395
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/s13414-014-0630-6

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?

  • Lab based studies that model checking photo-ID for secure access show that non-match prevalence rates of 10% lead to poorer detection accuracy.

    “However, lab based studies that model the task of checking photo-ID for secure access show that non-match prevalence rates of 10% lead to poorer detection accuracy [31]”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [31]

  • Performance in operational conditions may be substantially poorer than reported here.

    “suggesting that performance in operational conditions may be substantially poorer than reported here.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [31]

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: 31

  1. Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Blackwell, K. (2010). Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378–386. doi:10.1037/a0021893 · DOI
  2. Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40, 625–627. · 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.
  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, 305–327.
  5. 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
  6. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286–291. · DOI · Paper page
  7. 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
  8. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2002). Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure. Perception, 31, 985–994. · DOI
  9. Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482–505. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Visual Cognition, 17, 195–211.
  11. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330–337. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). The effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986–1004.
  13. Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323. · DOI
  14. 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
  15. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pozzulo, J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification errors. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 347–360. · DOI
  16. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.
  17. Megreya, A. M., & Bindemann, M. (2009). Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect. Perception, 38, 1831–1848. · DOI
  18. Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Havard, C. (2011). Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks. Acta Psychologica, 137, 83–89. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces aren’t faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175–1184. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364–372.
  22. Özbek, M., & Bindemann, M. (2011). Exploring the time course of face matching: Temporal constraints impair unfamiliar face identification under temporally unconstrained viewing. Vision Research, 51, 2145–2155. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 · DOI
  23. Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195–237. · DOI
  24. Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 59–83. doi:10.1037/a0014086 · DOI
  25. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–17. doi:10.1167/8.15.15 · DOI
  26. Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553. doi:10.3758/APP.71.3.541 · DOI
  27. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295. · DOI
  28. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items are often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440. · DOI
  30. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623–638. · DOI
  31. Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D.
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-02-06
Volume
76
Issue
5
Pages
1335-1349
ISSN
  • 1943-3921
  • 1943-393X
DOI
10.3758/s13414-014-0630-6
PMC
PMC4241395
Cited by
35
References
1
Language
en
Licence

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