↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences in hyper-realistic mask detection

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 (#43 of 372)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Individual differences in hyper-realistic mask detection
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0118-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jet G. Sanders, Rob Jenkins

Abstract

Hyper-realistic masks present a new challenge to security and crime prevention. We have recently shown that people's ability to differentiate these masks from real faces is extremely limited. Here we consider individual differences as a means to improve mask detection. Participants categorized single images as masks or real faces in a computer-based task. Experiment 1 revealed poor accuracy (40%) and large individual differences (5-100%) for high-realism masks among low-realism masks and real faces. Individual differences in mask categorization accuracy remained large when the Low-realism condition was eliminated (Experiment 2). Accuracy for mask images was not correlated with accuracy for real face images or with prior knowledge of hyper-realistic face masks. Image analysis revealed that mask and face stimuli were most strongly differentiated in the region below the eyes. Moreover, high-performing participants tracked the differential information in this area, but low-performing participants did not. Like other face tasks (e.g. identification), hyper-realistic mask detection gives rise to large individual differences in performance. Unlike many other face tasks, performance may be localized to a specific image cue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#730,604
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#43
of 372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,686
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 343,807 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 95% 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 done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.