| Title |
The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-012-0450-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah V. Stevenage, Greg J. Neil, Jess Barlow, Amy Dyson, Catherine Eaton-Brown, Beth Parsons |
| Abstract |
The results of two experiments are presented which explore the effect of distractor items on face and voice recognition. Following from the suggestion that voice processing is relatively weak compared to face processing, it was anticipated that voice recognition would be more affected by the presentation of distractor items between study and test compared to face recognition. Using a sequential matching task with a fixed interval between study and test that either incorporated distractor items or did not, the results supported our prediction. Face recognition remained strong irrespective of the number of distractor items between study and test. In contrast, voice recognition was significantly impaired by the presence of distractor items regardless of their number (Experiment 1). This pattern remained whether distractor items were highly similar to the targets or not (Experiment 2). These results offer support for the proposal that voice processing is a relatively vulnerable method of identification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 32% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 44% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,580,480
of 24,378,498 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#272
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,644
of 173,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,378,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 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 72% 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 173,075 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.