CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61

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

Feedback training for facial image comparison

White, David, Kemp, Richard I., Jenkins, Rob, Burton, A. Mike·2014·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3
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/s13423-013-0475-3

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?

  • Mentors provide examiners with feedback on the accuracy of their decisions and feature-based analysis, which may also facilitate learning.

    “Similarly, mentors provide examiners with feedback on the accuracy of their decisions and feature-based analysis, which may also facilitate learning [19].”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent work has shown that providing feedback on the accuracy of face matching decisions and performing face matching decisions in groups can improve accuracy in face matching tasks.

    “Alternatively, recent work has shown that providing feedback on the accuracy of face matching decisions [36, 37] and performing face matching decisions in groups [38] can improve accuracy in face matching tasks.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [36]

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: 22

  1. 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, 7, 207–218. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305–327. · DOI
  3. Bruck, M., Cavanagh, P., & Ceci, S. J. (1991). Fortysomething: Recognizing faces at one's 25th reunion. Memory and Cognition, 19(3), 221–228. · DOI
  4. Burton, A. M. (2013). Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.800125 · DOI
  5. Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P., & White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 256–284. · DOI
  6. Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2011). Mental representations of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 943–958. · DOI
  7. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286–291. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10(3), 243–248. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2005). Demonstrating how unfamiliar faces become familiar using a face matching task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 97–116. · DOI
  10. Cutler, V., & Paddock, S. (2009). Use of threat image projection (TIP) to enhance security performance. In Security technology, 2009. 43rd Annual 2009 International Carnahan Conference (pp. 46–51). · DOI
  11. Gonzalez, C., & Madhavan, P. (2011). Diversity during training enhances detection of novel stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 342–350. · DOI
  12. Hussain, Z., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2009). Perceptual learning modifies inversion effects for faces and textures. Vision Research, 49, 2273–2284. · DOI
  13. Hussain, Z., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2012). Versatile perceptual learning of textures after variable exposures. Vision Research, 61, 89–94. · DOI
  14. Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Stable face representations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 366, 1671–1683.
  15. Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323. · DOI
  16. Kemp, R. I., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 211–222. · DOI
  17. Megreya, A., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Megreya, A., & Burton, A. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 14(4), 364–372. · DOI
  19. Megreya, A., White, D., & Burton, A. M. (2011). The other race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1473–1483. · DOI · Paper page
  20. O'Toole, A. J., Phillips, J. P., Jiang, F., Ayyad, J., Penard, N., & Abdi, H. (2007). Face recognition algorithms surpass humans matching faces over changes in illumination. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(9), 1642–1646. · DOI
  21. Sowden, P. T., Rose, D., & Davies, I. R. L. (2002). Perceptual learning of luminance contrast detection: Specific for spatial frequency and retinal location but not orientation. Vision Research, 42(10), 1249–1258. · DOI
  22. Young, A. W., & Bruce, V. (2011). Understanding person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 959–974. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-07-09
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
100-106
ISSN
  • 1069-9384
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3
Cited by
61
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