↓ Skip to main content

Identifiable Images of Bystanders Extracted from Corneal Reflections

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 155,770)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Identifiable Images of Bystanders Extracted from Corneal Reflections
Published in
PLoS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0083325
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob Jenkins, Christie Kerr

Abstract

Criminal investigations often use photographic evidence to identify suspects. Here we combined robust face perception and high-resolution photography to mine face photographs for hidden information. By zooming in on high-resolution face photographs, we were able to recover images of unseen bystanders from reflections in the subjects' eyes. To establish whether these bystanders could be identified from the reflection images, we presented them as stimuli in a face matching task (Experiment 1). Accuracy in the face matching task was well above chance (50%), despite the unpromising source of the stimuli. Participants who were unfamiliar with the bystanders' faces (n = 16) performed at 71% accuracy [t(15) = 7.64, p<.0001, d = 1.91], and participants who were familiar with the faces (n = 16) performed at 84% accuracy [t(15) = 11.15, p<.0001, d = 2.79]. In a test of spontaneous recognition (Experiment 2), observers could reliably name a familiar face from an eye reflection image. For crimes in which the victims are photographed (e.g., hostage taking, child sex abuse), reflections in the eyes of the photographic subject could help to identify perpetrators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,633 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 8%
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 50 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 11 18%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Professor 7 11%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 23%
Computer Science 13 21%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Physics and Astronomy 5 8%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 3 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2219. 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 14 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,233
of 15,616,096 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#20
of 155,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14
of 265,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2
of 8,030 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,616,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 155,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 265,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8,030 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.