Unmasking a shady mirror effect: Recognition of normal versus obscured faces

Abstract

Hockley, Hemsworth, and Consoli (1999) found that following the study of normal faces, a recognition test of normal faces versus faces wearing sunglasses produced a mirror effect: The sunglasses manipulation decreased hit rates and increased false-alarm rates. The stimuli used by Hockley et al. (1999) consisted of separate poses of models wearing or not wearing sunglasses. In the current experiments, we separately manipulated same versus different depictions of individual faces and whether or not the faces were partially obscured. The results of a simulation and four experiments suggest that the test-based, mirror effect observed by Hockley et al. (1999) is actually two separable effects.

Incongruence in Lighting Impairs Face Identification

“…These results did not demonstrate any mirror effect ( Glanzer and Adams, 1985 , 1990 ), where better recognition performance would be accompanied by both a higher hit rate and a lower false alarm rate. Rather, our results were consistent with a dual-factor account of recognition memory ( Hockley et al, 1999 ; Vokey and Hockley, 2012 ), suggesting that false alarm rate was determined by general familiarity of the stimulus class, while hit rate was determined by recollection (retrieval of specific details from prior experience). We may reasonably argue that both bright and dim faces are familiar to us; hence, comparable false alarm rates.…”

Disguising Superman: How Glasses Affect Unfamiliar Face Matching

“…Recognition accuracy was impaired when a face initially seen with glasses is shown without glasses in the recognition phase, and vice versa (Leder et al, ; Patterson & Baddeley, ; Righi et al, ; Terry, , ). As one might expect, this detriment was also apparent when sunglasses were used (Hockley et al, ; Vokey & Hockley, ).…”

Cue quality and criterion setting in recognition memory

“…Experiments 1 and 2 did not produce mirror effects similar to those obtained by Hockley et al (1999). However, in a recent follow-up study, Vokey and Hockley (2012) demonstrated that the previously observed mirror effects for partially obscured faces actually consists of two separable processes (differences in discrimination and changes in decision criteria), and are therefore more complex than initially assumed. Still, Vokey and Hockley (2012) came to the conclusion that their participants were likely to have adopted a more liberal criterion for degraded test items.…”

“…However, in a recent follow-up study, Vokey and Hockley (2012) demonstrated that the previously observed mirror effects for partially obscured faces actually consists of two separable processes (differences in discrimination and changes in decision criteria), and are therefore more complex than initially assumed. Still, Vokey and Hockley (2012) came to the conclusion that their participants were likely to have adopted a more liberal criterion for degraded test items. Analysis of Experiments 1 and 2 apparently provides strong evidence in support of that conclusion, using different stimuli (scenes), degrading the whole stimulus, and using two different methods of degradation, both avoiding the confounds that occurred in the original study by Hockley et al (1999;see Vokey & Hockley, 2012, for a discussion).…”