↓ Skip to main content

Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, February 2014
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 (#31 of 1,773)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, February 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13414-014-0630-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan H. Papesh, Stephen D. Goldinger

Abstract

The ability to quickly and accurately match faces to photographs bears critically on many domains, from controlling purchase of age-restricted goods to law enforcement and airport security. Despite its pervasiveness and importance, research has shown that face matching is surprisingly error prone. The majority of face-matching research is conducted under idealized conditions (e.g., using photographs of individuals taken on the same day) and with equal proportions of match and mismatch trials, a rate that is likely not observed in everyday face matching. In four experiments, we presented observers with photographs of faces taken an average of 1.5 years apart and tested whether face-matching performance is affected by the prevalence of identity mismatches, comparing conditions of low (10 %) and high (50 %) mismatch prevalence. Like the low-prevalence effect in visual search, we observed inflated miss rates under low-prevalence conditions. This effect persisted when participants were allowed to correct their initial responses (Experiment 2), when they had to verify every decision with a certainty judgment (Experiment 3) and when they were permitted "second looks" at face pairs (Experiment 4). These results suggest that, under realistic viewing conditions, the low-prevalence effect in face matching is a large, persistent source of errors.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 56%
Engineering 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#781,155
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#31
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,872
of 315,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#4
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 315,153 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 91% of its contemporaries.