Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 76, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1335-1349

  Papesh, Megan H ^a   Goldinger, Stephen D ^b  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Low prevalence effect; Signal detection; Unfamiliar face matching

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904346358     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0630-6     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Blackwell, K. (2010). Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378-386. doi: 10. 1037/a0021893.
2. Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40, 625-627.
3. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339-360.
4. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 305-327.
5. Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J. B., & White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 256-284.
6. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286-291.
7. Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10, 243-248.
8. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2002). Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure. Perception, 31, 985-994.
9. Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482-505.
10. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Visual Cognition, 17, 195-211.
11. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330-337.
12. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). The effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986-1004.
13. Jenkins, R., White, D., van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313-323.
14. Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards, and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 211-222.
15. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pozzulo, J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification errors. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 347-360.
16. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
17. Megreya, A. M., & Bindemann, M. (2009). Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect. Perception, 38, 1831-1848.
18. Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Havard, C. (2011). Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks. Acta Psychologica, 137, 83-89. doi: 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2011. 03. 003.
19. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces aren't faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865-876.
20. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175-1184.
21. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364-372.
22. Özbek, M., & Bindemann, M. (2011). Exploring the time course of face matching: Temporal constraints impair unfamiliar face identification under temporally unconstrained viewing. Vision Research, 51, 2145-2155. doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2011. 08. 009.
23. Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195-237.
24. Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 59-83. doi: 10. 1037/a0014086.
25. Recinto, R. (2012). 'Missing' woman unknowingly joins search for herself. Retrieved from: http://news. yahoo. com/blogs/sideshow/missing-woman-unknowingly-joins-search-herself-165249353. html.
26. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8, 1-17. doi: 10. 1167/8. 15. 15.
27. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people in a real-world inter- action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 644-649.
28. van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541-553. doi: 10. 3758/APP. 71. 3. 541.
29. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
30. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items are often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439-440.
32. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623-638.
33. Wolfe, J. M., & van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121-124. doi: 10. 1016/j. cub. 2009. 11. 066.