Perceived ability and actual recognition accuracy for unfamiliar and famous faces

Bindemann, Markus; Attard, Janice; Johnston, Robert A.

doi:10.1080/23311908.2014.986903

Cited by 37 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our participants performed all assessments remotely over the internet, and prior evidence indicates that the quality and reliability of data collected through the web is as good as that of data collected in the laboratory (Germine et al, 2012). Consistent with this finding, the magnitude of our correlation between CFMQ scores and objective facial recognition performance fell at the high end of the range of values previously reported for associations between subjective and objective measures in the laboratory-based studies of other research groups (Bindemann et al, 2014;Gray et al, 2017;Livingston & Shah, 2017;Rotshtein et al, 2007;Shah, Gaule, et al, 2015a;Shah, Sowden, et al, 2015b;Stollhoff et al, 2011;Turano et al, 2016;Turano & Viggiano, 2017). Nonetheless, one could speculate that the data for the participants we identified as having prosopagnosia might be uniquely suspect with respect to its quality, given that this subset of participants, by definition, constitutes the outliers, and that such poor performance could merely be caused by factors unrelated to facial recognition ability.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In an attempt to efficiently identify and study individuals with poor facial recognition abilities in a similar manner, several research groups have developed self-reported facial recognition ability questionnaires or clinical interviews, the scores of which have been reported to be associated with other measures of facial recognition performance (De Heering & Maurer, 2014;Kennerknecht et al, 2006;Kennerknecht, Plümpe, Edwards, & Raman, 2007;Palermo et al, 2017;Shah, Gaule, Sowden, Bird, & Cook, 2015a;Turano, Marzi, & Viggiano, 2016). Prior studies have reported moderate-tostrong correlations between self-reported face recognition abilities and objective performance, for typical participants (Bindemann, Attard, & Johnston, 2014;Gray, Bird, & Cook, 2017;Livingston & Shah, 2017;Rotshtein, Geng, Driver, & Dolan, 2007;Shah, Gaule, Sowden, Bird, & Cook, 2015a;Shah, Sowden, Gaule, Catmur, & Bird, 2015b;Turano et al, 2016;Turano & Viggiano, 2017;Wilmer et al, 2010; though see Palermo et al, 2017) as well as for those with developmental prosopagnosia (Livingston & Shah, 2017;Stollhoff, Jost, Elze, & Kennerknecht, 2011). The reported correlation magnitudes are usually in the range of .35 to .55.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe developmental deficits in face recognition ability (developmental prosopagnosia, or DP) have been vigorously studied over the past decade, yet many questions remain unanswered about their origins, nature, and social consequences. A rate-limiting factor in answering such questions is the challenge of recruiting rare DP participants. Although self-reported experiences have long played a role in efforts to identify DPs, much remains unknown about how such self-reports can or should contribute to screening or diagnosis. Here, in a large, population-based web sample, we investigated the effectiveness of self-report, used on its own, as a screen to identify individuals who will ultimately fail, at a conventional cutoff, the two types of objective tests that are most commonly used to confirm DP diagnoses: the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) and the famous faces memory test (FFMT). We used a highly reliable questionnaire (alpha = .91), the Cambridge Face Memory Questionnaire (CFMQ), and revealed strong validity via high correlations of .44 with the CFMT and .52 with the FFMT. However, cutoff analyses revealed that no CFMQ score yielded a clinical-grade combination of sensitivity and positive predictive value in enough individuals to support using it alone as a DP diagnostic or screening tool. This result was replicated in an analysis of data from the widely used PI20 questionnaire, a 20-question self-assessment of facial recognition similar in form to the CFMQ. We therefore recommend that screens for DP should, wherever possible, include objective as well as subjective assessment tools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bindemann et al, 2014). In contrast, the study using the recently developed PI20 questionnaire (Shah et al, 2015) suggests that people do have a great deal of 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 insight into their face recognition abilities: scores on the PI20 correlated highly (and as expected, negatively) with scores on a famous face task (r(171) = -.81, p < .001) and the CFMT (r(108) = -.68, p < .001).…”

Section: You Have the Impression Of Being Less Accurate Than Other Pementioning

confidence: 99%

Do People Have Insight into their Face Recognition Abilities?

Palermo

Rossion

Rhodes

et al. 2017

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis of developmental or congenital prosopagnosia (CP) involves self-report of everyday face recognition difficulties, which are corroborated with poor performance on behavioural tests. This approach requires accurate self-evaluation. We examine the extent to which typical adults have insight into their face recognition abilities across four experiments involving nearly 300 participants. The experiments used five tests of face recognition ability: two that tap into the ability to learn and recognize previously unfamiliar faces [the Cambridge Face Memory Test, CFMT; Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576–585. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001; and a newly devised test based on the CFMT but where the study phases involve watching short movies rather than viewing static faces—the CFMT-Films] and three that tap face matching [Benton Facial Recognition Test, BFRT; Benton, A., Sivan, A., Hamsher, K., Varney, N., & Spreen, O. (1983). Contribution to neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press; and two recently devised sequential face matching tests]. Self-reported ability was measured with the 15-item Kennerknecht et al. questionnaire [Kennerknecht, I., Ho, N. Y., & Wong, V. C. (2008). Prevalence of hereditary prosopagnosia (HPA) in Hong Kong Chinese population. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 146A(22), 2863–2870. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32552]; two single-item questions assessing face recognition ability; and a new 77-item meta-cognition questionnaire. Overall, we find that adults with typical face recognition abilities have only modest insight into their ability to recognize faces on behavioural tests. In a fifth experiment, we assess self-reported face recognition ability in people with CP and find that some people who expect to perform poorly on behavioural tests of face recognition do indeed perform poorly. However, it is not yet clear whether individuals within this group of poor performers have greater levels of insight (i.e., into their degree of impairment) than those with more typical levels of performance.

show abstract

“…6 Para una explicación sobre las diferencias procesales entre el reconocimiento de personas familiares y desconocidas con fotografías, véase (Young & Burton, 2017). Para otros estudios que sostienen esta teoría, véase (Baker, Laurence, & Mondloch, 2017;Bindemann, Attard, & Johnston, 2014;Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012;Bindemann & Johnston, 2017;Bruce, 2013;Bruce, Henderson, Newman, & Burton, 2001;Bruce & Young, 2012;Burton, 2013;Burton, Miller, Bruce, Hancock, & Henderson, 2001;Burton, White, & McNeill, 2010;Burton, Wilson, Cowan, & Bruce, 1999;Burton, Jenkins, & Schweinberger, 2011;Clutterbuck & Johnston, 2002, 2004Davies & Young, 2017;J. Davis & Valentine, 2015;Hancock, Bruce, & Burton, 2000;Jenkins & Burton, 2008;Johnston & Edmonds, 2009;Jones, Dwyer, & Lewis, 2017;Longmore et al, 2017;Megreya & Burton, 2006, 2007Megreya, Sandford, & Burton, 2013;Ritchie et al, 2015;Robertson, Middleton, & Burton, 2015;Robertson, Noyes, Dowsett, & Jenkins, 2016;Young & Bruce, 2011;Young & Burton, 2017).…”

Section: Universitat Politècnica De Valènciaunclassified

La identificación con fotografías: un medio obsoleto

Fernández

2017

Libro De Actas - I Congreso Internacional Sobre Fotografia: Nuevas Propuestas en Investigacion Y Docencia De La Fotografia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El uso de fotografías como método de identificación es muy común en nuestra sociedad. Si ya hace muchos años que las fotografías se utilizan como prueba de identidad del portador —pasaportes, carnés de identidad, de conducir, afiliación a cierta asociación, club, mutua, etc.—, hoy en día con la proliferación de imágenes tanto en grabaciones de cámaras de vídeo para la vigilancia, como accesibles a través de Internet y las redes sociales, esta función es todavía más frecuente. Sin embargo, ¿estamos seguros de que este método de identificación funciona? El objetivo de esta comunicación es demostrar desde la Psicología del reconocimiento facial que la identificación de desconocidos mediante retratos falla en un porcentaje inadmisible de los casos.

show abstract

Perceived ability and actual recognition accuracy for unfamiliar and famous faces

Cited by 37 publications

References 29 publications

Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

Self-reported face recognition is highly valid, but alone is not highly discriminative of prosopagnosia-level performance on objective assessments

Do People Have Insight into their Face Recognition Abilities?

La identificación con fotografías: un medio obsoleto

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About