↓ Skip to main content

Improving face identification with specialist teams

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Improving face identification with specialist teams
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0114-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarryn Balsdon, Stephanie Summersby, Richard I. Kemp, David White

Abstract

People vary in their ability to identify faces, and this variability is relatively stable across repeated testing. This suggests that recruiting high performers can improve identity verification accuracy in applied settings. Here, we report the first systematic study to evaluate real-world benefits of selecting high performers based on performance in standardized face identification tests. We simulated a recruitment process for a specialist team tasked with detecting fraudulent passport applications. University students (n = 114) completed a battery of screening tests followed by a real-world face identification task that is performed routinely when issuing identity documents. Consistent with previous work, individual differences in the real-world task were relatively stable across repeated tests taken 1 week apart (r = 0.6), and accuracy scores on screening tests and the real-world task were moderately correlated. Nevertheless, performance gains achieved by selecting groups based on screening tests were surprisingly small, leading to a 7% improvement in accuracy. Statistically aggregating decisions across individuals-using a 'wisdom of crowds' approach-led to more substantial gains than selection alone. Finally, controlling for individual accuracy of team members, the performance of a team in one test predicted their performance in a subsequent test, suggesting that a 'good team' is not only defined by the individual accuracy of team members. Overall, these results underline the need to use a combination of approaches to improve face identification performance in professional settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 45%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 55%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 November 2019.
All research outputs
#13,042,363
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#211
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,344
of 329,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 51% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.