| Title |
Individual differences in the detection, matching and memory of faces
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-018-0111-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew C. Fysh |
| Abstract |
Previous research has explored relationships between individual performance in the detection, matching and memory of faces, but under limiting conditions. The current study sought to extend previous findings with a different measure of face detection, and a more challenging face matching task, in combination with an established test of face memory. Experiment 1 tested face detection ability under conditions designed to maximise individual differences in accuracy but did not find evidence for relationships between measures. In addition, in Experiments 2 and 3, which utilised response times as the primary performance measure for face detection, but accuracy for face matching and face memory, no correlations were observed between performance on face detection and the other tasks. However, there was a correlation between accuracy in face matching and face memory, consistent with other research. Together, these experiments provide further evidence for a dissociation between face detection, and face matching and face memory, but suggest that these latter tasks share some common mechanisms. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 53% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,518
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#163
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,138
of 329,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.