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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41235-018-0116-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in people with superior face recognition skills. Yet identification of these individuals has mostly relied on criterion performance on a single attempt at a single measure of face memory. The current investigation aimed to examine the consistency of superior face recognition skills in 30 police officers, both across tests that tap into the same process and between tests that tap into different components of face processing. Overall indices of performance across related measures were found to identify different superior performers to isolated test scores. Further, different top performers emerged for target-present versus target-absent indices, suggesting that signal detection measures are the most useful indicators of performance. Finally, a dissociation was observed between superior memory and matching performance. Super-recognizer screening programmes hould therefore include overall indices summarizing multiple attempts at related tests, allowing for individuals to rank highly on different (and sometimes very specific) tasks.

Conflict in the Stroop task is thought to come from various stages of processing, including semantics. Two-to-one response mappings, in which two response-set colors share a common response location, have been used to isolate stimulus-stimulus (semantic) from stimulus-response conflict in the Stroop task. However, the use of congruent trials as a baseline means that the measured effects could be exaggerated by facilitation, and recent research using neutral, non-colorword trials as a baseline has supported this notion. In the present study, we sought to provide evidence for stimulusstimulus conflict using an oculomotor Stroop task and an early, preresponse pupillometric measure of effort. The results provided strong (Bayesian) evidence for no statistical difference between two-to-one response-mapping trials and neutral trials in both saccadic response latencies and preresponse pupillometric measures, supporting the notion that the difference between same-response and congruent trials indexes facilitation in congruent trials, and not stimulus-stimulus conflict, thus providing evidence against the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task. We also demonstrated the utility of preresponse pupillometry in measuring Stroop interference, supporting the idea that pupillary effects are not simply a residue of making a response.Keywords Stroop . Semantic conflict . Same response . Pupillometry . OculomotorThe Stroop effect refers to the finding that people are slower to name the color that a word is printed in when the word spells out another color (incongruent trials-e.g., the word red in blue) than to name the color of a square (Stroop, 1935) or to name a word's color when the word spells out the same color (congruent trials-e.g., the word red in red; Klein, 1964; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). The Stroop task has been described as the gold standard for measuring attention (MacLeod, 1992) and has been the focus of influential models of attention (e.g., Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland 1990;Glaser & Glaser, 1989;Roelofs, 2003).The Stroop effect has been attributed to having to resolve conflict at the response stage when the color and the meaning of the word each activate different responses (referred to as response conflict or stimulus-response conflict; Cohen et al., 1990;MacLeod, 1991;Roelofs, 2003). However, some researchers have posited that, in addition to interference/ conflict resolution at the response stage, performance in the Stroop task also requires conflict resolution at earlier processing stages (e.g

The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement.

A series of recent studies have utilized the two-to-one mapping paradigm in the Stroop task. In this paradigm, the word red might be presented in blue when both red and blue share the same-response key (same-response trials). This manipulation has been used to show the separate contributions of (within) semantic category conflict and response conflict to Stroop interference. Such results evidencing semantic category conflict are incompatible with models of the Stroop task that are based on response conflict only. However, the nature of same-response trials is unclear since they are also likely to involve response facilitation given that both dimensions of the stimulus provide evidence toward the same-response. In this study we explored this possibility by comparing them with three other trial types. We report strong (Bayesian) evidence for no statistical difference between same-response and non-color word neutral trials, faster responses to same-response trials than to non-response set incongruent trials, and no differences between same-response vs. congruent trials when contingency is controlled. Our results suggest that same-response trials are not different from neutral trials indicating that they cannot be used reliably to determine the presence or absence of semantic category conflict. In light of these results, the interpretation of a series of recent studies might have to be reassessed.

Despite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.

An enduring question in selective attention research is whether we can successfully ignore an irrelevant stimulus and at what point in the stream of processing we are able to select the appropriate source of information. Using methods informed by recent research on the varieties of conflict in the Stroop task the present study provides evidence for specialized functions of regions of the frontoparietal network in processing response and semantic conflict during Stroop task performance. Specifically, we used trial types and orthogonal contrasts thought to better independently measure response and semantic conflict and we presented the trial types in pure blocks to maximize response conflict and therefore better distinguish between the conflict types. Our data indicate that the left inferior PFC plays an important role in the processing of both response and semantic (or stimulus) conflict, whilst regions of the left parietal cortex (BA40) play an accompanying role in response, but not semantic, conflict processing. Moreover, our study reports a role for the right mediodorsal thalamus in processing semantic, but not response, conflict. In none of our comparisons did we observe activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a finding we ascribe to the use of blocked trial type presentation and one that has implications for theories of ACC function.

The response set effect refers to the finding that an irrelevant incongruent colour-word produces greater interference when it is one of the response options (referred to as a response set trial), compared to when it is not (a non-response set trial). Despite being a key effect for models of selective attention, the magnitude of the effect varies considerably across studies. We report two within-subjects experiments that tested the hypothesis that presentation format modulates the magnitude of the response set effect. Trial types (e.g. response set, non-response set, neutral) were either presented in separate blocks (pure) or in blocks containing trials from all conditions presented randomly (mixed). In the first experiment we show that the response set effect is substantially reduced in the mixed block context as a result of a decrease in RTs to response set trials. By demonstrating the modulation of the response set effect under conditions of trial type mixing we present evidence that is difficult for models of the effect based on strategic, top-down biasing of attention to explain. In a second experiment we tested a stimulus-driven account of the response set effect by manipulating the number of colour-words that make up the non-response set of distractors. The results show that the greater the number of non-response set colour concepts, the smaller the response set effect. Alternative accounts of the data and its implications for research debating the automaticity of reading are discussed.