↓ Skip to main content

Can people identify original and manipulated photos of real-world scenes?

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 309)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
79 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Can people identify original and manipulated photos of real-world scenes?
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0067-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie J. Nightingale, Kimberley A. Wade, Derrick G. Watson

Abstract

Advances in digital technology mean that the creation of visually compelling photographic fakes is growing at an incredible speed. The prevalence of manipulated photos in our everyday lives invites an important, yet largely unanswered, question: Can people detect photo forgeries? Previous research using simple computer-generated stimuli suggests people are poor at detecting geometrical inconsistencies within a scene. We do not know, however, whether such limitations also apply to real-world scenes that contain common properties that the human visual system is attuned to processing. In two experiments we asked people to detect and locate manipulations within images of real-world scenes. Subjects demonstrated a limited ability to detect original and manipulated images. Furthermore, across both experiments, even when subjects correctly detected manipulated images, they were often unable to locate the manipulation. People's ability to detect manipulated images was positively correlated with the extent of disruption to the underlying structure of the pixels in the photo. We also explored whether manipulation type and individual differences were associated with people's ability to identify manipulations. Taken together, our findings show, for the first time, that people have poor ability to identify whether a real-world image is original or has been manipulated. The results have implications for professionals working with digital images in legal, media, and other domains.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 23%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 7 6%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 21%
Computer Science 19 17%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Arts and Humanities 10 9%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 26 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 712. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#22,659
of 22,496,028 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#4
of 309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#491
of 286,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,496,028 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 309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. 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 286,551 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them