Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32076893›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020

Normative data for two challenging tests of face matching under ecological conditions.

Lisa Stacchi, Eva Huguenin-Elie, Roberto Caldara, Meike Ramon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Improving forensic perpetrator identification with Super-Recognizers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Towards a 'manifesto' for super-recognizer research.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lisa StacchiEye and Brain Mapping Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Eva Huguenin-ElieApplied Face Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Roberto CaldaraEye and Brain Mapping Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Meike RamonApplied Face Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. meike.ramon@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5753-5493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnfamiliar face processing is an ability that varies considerably between individuals. Numerous studies have aimed to identify its underlying determinants using controlled experimental procedures. While such tests can isolate variables that influence face processing, they usually involve somewhat unrealistic situations and optimized face images as stimulus material. As a consequence, the extent to which the performance observed under laboratory settings is informative for predicting real-life proficiency remains unclear.

resultsWe present normative data for two ecologically valid but underused tests of face matching: the Yearbook Test (YBT) and the Facial Identity Card Sorting Test (FICST). The YBT (n = 252) measures identity matching across substantial age-related changes in facial appearance, while the FICST (n = 218) assesses the ability to process unfamiliar facial identity despite superficial image variations. To determine the predictive value of both tests, a subsample of our cohort (n = 181) also completed a commonly used test of face recognition and two tests of face perception (the long form of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT+), the Expertise in Facial Comparison Test (EFCT) and the Person Identification Challenge Test (PICT)).

conclusionsFocusing on the top performers identified independently per test, we made two important observations: 1) YBT and FICST performance can predict CFMT+ scores and vice versa; and 2) EFCT and PICT scores neither reliably predict superior performance in ecologically meaningful and challenging tests of face matching, nor in the most commonly used test of face recognition. These findings emphasize the necessity for using challenging and ecologically relevant, and thus highly sensitive, tasks of unfamiliar face processing to identify high-performing individuals in the normal population.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsSocial PerceptionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFacial RecognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsReference ValuesYoung AdultFace discriminationFace matchingFace perceptionFace recognitionNatural image variationsSuperior face processing ability

Identifiers

PMID32076893
PMCPMC7031457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.