↓ Skip to main content

Normative accuracy and response time data for the computerized Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT-c)

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Normative accuracy and response time data for the computerized Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT-c)
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1023-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Rossion, Caroline Michel

Abstract

We report normative data from a large (N = 307) sample of young adult participants tested with a computerized version of the long form of the classical Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT; Benton & Van Allen, 1968). The BFRT-c requires participants to match a target face photograph to either one or three of six face photographs presented simultaneously. We found that the percent accuracy on the BFRT-c (81%-83%) was below ceiling yet well above chance level, with little interindividual variance in this typical population sample, two important aspects of a sensitive clinical test. Although the split-half reliability on response accuracy was relatively low, due to the large variability in difficulty across items, the correct response times measured in this version-completed in 3 min, on average-provide a reliable and critical complementary measure of performance at individual unfamiliar-face matching. In line with previous observations from other measures, females outperformed male participants at the BFRT-c, especially for female faces. In general, performance was also lower following lighting changes than following head rotations, in line with previous studies that have emphasized participants' limited ability to match pictures of unfamiliar faces with important variations in illumination. Overall, this normative data set supports the validity of the BFRT-c as a key component of a battery of tests to identify clinical impairments in individual face recognition, such as observed in acquired prosopagnosia. However, this analysis strongly recommends that researchers consider the full test results: Beyond global indexes of performance based on accuracy rates only, they should consider the time taken to match individual faces as well as the variability in performance across items.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 32%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#809
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,673
of 351,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 351,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.