| Title |
Recognition-induced forgetting of faces in visual long-term memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-017-1419-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelsi F. Rugo, Kendall N. Tamler, Geoffrey F. Woodman, Ashleigh M. Maxcey |
| Abstract |
Despite more than a century of evidence that long-term memory for pictures and words are different, much of what we know about memory comes from studies using words. Recent research examining visual long-term memory has demonstrated that recognizing an object induces the forgetting of objects from the same category. This recognition-induced forgetting has been shown with a variety of everyday objects. However, unlike everyday objects, faces are objects of expertise. As a result, faces may be immune to recognition-induced forgetting. However, despite excellent memory for such stimuli, we found that faces were susceptible to recognition-induced forgetting. Our findings have implications for how models of human memory account for recognition-induced forgetting as well as represent objects of expertise and consequences for eyewitness testimony and the justice system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 56% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,820,201
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#670
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,939
of 319,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.