Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Determinants of Face Recognition: The Role of Target Prevalence and Similarity Cover

Determinants of Face Recognition: The Role of Target Prevalence and Similarity

Open Access
|Feb 2024

References

  1. 1Bate, S., Frowd, C., Bennetts, R., Hasshim, N., Murray, E., Bobak, A., Willis, H., & Richards, S. (2018). Applied screening tests for the detection of superior face recognition. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-018-0116-5
  2. 2Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 148. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  3. 3Bobak, A. K., Hancock, P. J., Hilker, Z., Mestry, N., Bate, P. S., Jones, A., & Watt, R. (under review). Data driven approaches can tell us as much about the processes underlying face cognition as the quality of the available tests and data sets allows. Where do we xgo from here? DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5K9NY
  4. 4Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P., Burton, A., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from iImages captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339360. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339
  5. 5Ellis, H. D. (1975). Recognizing Faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66(4), 409426. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01477.x
  6. 6Evans, K. K., Birdwell, R. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). If You Don’t Find It Often, You Often Don’t Find It: Why Some Cancers Are Missed in Breast Cancer Screening. PLOS ONE, 8(5), e64366. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064366
  7. 7Fishel, J., Levine, M., & Date, J. (2015, June). Undercover DHS Tests Find Security Failures at US Airports. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespreadsecurity-failures/story?id_31434881
  8. 8Fysh, M. C., & Ramon, M. (2022). Accurate but inefficient: Standard face identity matching tests fail to identify prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 165, 108119. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108119
  9. 9Fysh, M. C., Stacchi, L., & Ramon, M. (2020). Differences between and within individuals, and subprocesses of face cognition: Implications for theory, research and personnel selection. Royal Society Open Science, 7(9), 200233. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.200233
  10. 10Gur, D., Sumkin, J. H., Rockette, H. E., Ganott, M., Hakim, C., Hardesty, L., Poller, W. R., Shah, R., & Wallace, L. (2004). Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(3), 185190. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh067
  11. 11Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Stable face representations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 16711683. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379
  12. 12Kristjánsson, Á., & Campana, G. (2010). Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(1), 518. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.1.5
  13. 13Linka, M., Broda, M. D., Alsheimer, T., de Haas, B., & Ramon, M. (2022). Characteristic fixation biases in Super-Recognizers. Journal of Vision, 22(8), 17. DOI: 10.1167/jov.22.8.17
  14. 14Matthews, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2018). Finding an unfamiliar face in a line-up: Viewing multiple images of the target is beneficial on target-present trials but costly on target-absent trials. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 758776. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12301
  15. 15Mayer, M., & Ramon, M. (2023). Improving forensic perpetrator identification with Super-Recognizers. PsyArXiv. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/9zq7j
  16. 16Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 335. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3
  17. 17Nador, J. D., Alsheimer, T. A., Gay, A., & Ramon, M. (2021a). Image or Identity? Only Super-recognizers’ (Memor)Ability is Consistently Viewpoint-Invariant. Swiss Psychology Open: The Official Journal of the Swiss Psychological Society, 1(1), Art. 1. DOI: 10.5334/spo.28
  18. 18Nador, J. D., Vomland, M., Thielgen, M. M., & Ramon, M. (2022). Face recognition in police officers: Who fits the bill? Forensic Science International: Reports, 5, 100267. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsir.2022.100267
  19. 19Nador, J. D., Zoia, M., Pachai, M. V., & Ramon, M. (2021b). Psychophysical profiles in super-recognizers. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Art. 1. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92549-6
  20. 20Nakashima, R., Kobayashi, K., Maeda, E., Yoshikawa, T., & Yokosawa, K. (2013). Visual Search of Experts in Medical Image Reading: The Effect of Training, Target Prevalence, and Expert Knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00166. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00166
  21. 21Patterson, K. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 406417. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.3.4.406
  22. 22Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2016). Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 14661476. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000248
  23. 23Puri, K. S., Suresh, K. R., Gogtay, N. J., & Thatte, U. M. (2009). Declaration of Helsinki, 2008: Implications for stakeholders in research. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 55(2), 131. DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.52846
  24. 24R Core Team. (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
  25. 25Ramon, M. (2021). Super-Recognizers – a novel diagnostic framework, 70 cases, and guidelines for future work. Neuropsychologia, 158, 107809. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107809
  26. 26Ramon, M., Bobak, A. K., & White, D. (2019). Super-recognizers: From the lab to the world and back again. British Journal of Psychology, 110(3), 461479. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12368
  27. 27Ramon, M., Busigny, T., Gosselin, F., & Rossion, B. (2016). All new kids on the block? Impaired holistic processing of personally familiar faces in a kindergarten teacher with acquired prosopagnosia. Visual Cognition, 24(5–6), 321355. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2016.1273985
  28. 28Ramon, M., & Gobbini, M. I. (2018). Familiarity matters: A review on prioritized processing of personally familiar faces. Visual Cognition, 26(3), 179195. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2017.1405134
  29. 29Ramon, M., & Rjosk, S. (2022). Sure® – Berlin Test for Super-Recognizer Identification online bestellen|978-3-86676-762-1|MANZ. (2022). https://shop.manz.at/shop/products/9783866767621
  30. 30Rossion, B. (2022a). Twenty years of investigation with the case of prosopagnosia PS to understand human face identity recognition. Part I: Function. Neuropsychologia, 173, 108278. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108278
  31. 31Rossion, B. (2022b). Twenty years of investigation with the case of prosopagnosia PS to understand human face identity recognition. Part II: Neural basis. Neuropsychologia, 173, 108279. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108279
  32. 32Rossion, B., Retter, T. L., & Liu-Shuang, J. (2020). Understanding human individuation of unfamiliar faces with oddball fast periodic visual stimulation and electroencephalography. European Journal of Neuroscience, 52(10), 42834344. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14865
  33. 33Russell, R., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 252257. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252
  34. 34Stacchi, L., Huguenin-Elie, E., Caldara, R., & Ramon, M. (2020). Normative data for two challenging tests of face matching under ecological conditions. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 8. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-019-0205-0
  35. 35Transportation Security Administration. (2015). EXCLUSIVE: https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881
  36. 36Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness Testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277295. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
  37. 37Wolfe, 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, 623638. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623
  38. 38Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying Target Prevalence Reveals Two Dissociable Decision Criteria in Visual Search. Current Biology, 20(2), 121124. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066
  39. 39Young, A. W., & Ellis, H. D., (1989). Handbook of Research on Face Processing-1st Edition. https://www.elsevier.com/books/handbook-of-research-on-face-processing/young/978-0-444-87143-5
  40. 40Yovel, G. (2016). Neural and cognitive face-selective markers: An integrative review. Neuropsychologia, 83, 513. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.09.026
  41. 41Zimmermann, A., Lorenz, A., & Oppermann, R. (2007). An Operational Definition of Context. In B. Kokinov, D. C. Richardson, T. R. Roth-Berghofer & L. Vieu (Éds.), Modeling and Using Context (pp. 558571). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74255-5_42
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.339 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Jun 28, 2023
Accepted on: Dec 13, 2023
Published on: Feb 21, 2024
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Lionel Boudry, Jeffrey D. Nador, Meike Ramon, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.