↓ Skip to main content

Face recognition ability does not predict person identification performance: using individual data in the interpretation of group results

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Face recognition ability does not predict person identification performance: using individual data in the interpretation of group results
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0117-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eilidh Noyes, Matthew Q. Hill, Alice J. O’Toole

Abstract

There are large individual differences in people's face recognition ability. These individual differences provide an opportunity to recruit the best face-recognisers into jobs that require accurate person identification, through the implementation of ability-screening tasks. To date, screening has focused exclusively on face recognition ability; however real-world identifications can involve the use of other person-recognition cues. Here we incorporate body and biological motion recognition as relevant skills for person identification. We test whether performance on a standardised face-matching task (the Glasgow Face Matching Test) predicts performance on three other identity-matching tasks, based on faces, bodies, and biological motion. We examine the results from group versus individual analyses. We found stark differences between the conclusions one would make from group analyses versus analyses that retain information about individual differences. Specifically, tests of correlation and analysis of variance suggested that face recognition ability was related to performance for all person identification tasks. These analyses were strikingly inconsistent with the individual differences data, which suggested that the screening task was related only to performance on the face task. This study highlights the importance of individual data in the interpretation of results of person identification ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 33%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 49%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Computer Science 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 05 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,354,143
of 24,592,508 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#70
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,225
of 334,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,592,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 334,380 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.