↓ Skip to main content

Applied screening tests for the detection of superior face recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
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 (#41 of 324)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Applied screening tests for the detection of superior face recognition
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0116-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Bate, Charlie Frowd, Rachel Bennetts, Nabil Hasshim, Ebony Murray, Anna K. Bobak, Harriet Wills, Sarah Richards

Abstract

In recent years there has been growing interest in the identification of people with superior face recognition skills, for both theoretical and applied investigations. These individuals have mostly been identified via their performance on a single attempt at a tightly controlled test of face memory-the long form of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT+). The consistency of their skills over a range of tests, particularly those replicating more applied policing scenarios, has yet to be examined systematically. The current investigation screened 200 people who believed they have superior face recognition skills, using the CFMT+ and three new, more applied tests (measuring face memory, face matching and composite-face identification in a crowd). Of the sample, 59.5% showed at least some consistency in superior face recognition performance, although only five individuals outperformed controls on overall indices of target-present and target-absent trials. Only one participant outperformed controls on the Crowds test, suggesting that some applied face recognition tasks require very specific skills. In conclusion, future screening protocols need to be suitably thorough to test for consistency in performance, and to allow different types of superior performer to be detected from the outset. Screening for optimal performers may sometimes need to directly replicate the task in question, taking into account target-present and target-absent performance. Self-selection alone is not a reliable means of identifying those at the top end of the face recognition spectrum.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 28%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 54%
Computer Science 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#696,365
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#41
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,834
of 329,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 329,163 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.