ArticlePloS one2020
Human-algorithm teaming in face recognition: How algorithm outcomes cognitively bias human decision-making.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Answer Bot Effect (ABE): A powerful new form of influence made possible by intelligent personal assistants and search engines.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Article
- Time Pressure Increases Automation Reliance in a Face Matching Task.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026Article
- Automated face recognition assists with low-prevalence face identity mismatches but can bias users.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- AI-augmented decision-making in face matching: comparing concurrent and non-concurrent advice presentation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Understanding the influence of design-related factors on human-AI teaming in a face matching task.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- The effects of contextual bias on face recognition decisions.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Masked face matching benefits from isolated facial features.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Trust in automation and the accuracy of human-algorithm teams performing one-to-one face matching tasks.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Humans inherit artificial intelligence biases.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and forensic dentistry.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023Review
- Verifying unfamiliar identities: Effects of processing name and face information in the same identity-matching task.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- COVID-19 masks increase the influence of face recognition algorithm decisions on human decisions in unfamiliar face matching.PloS one · 2022Article
- Public attitudes towards the use of automatic facial recognition technology in criminal justice systems around the world.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In face recognition applications, humans often team with algorithms, reviewing algorithm results to make an identity decision. However, few studies have explicitly measured how algorithms influence human face matching performance. One study that did examine this interaction found a concerning deterioration of human accuracy in the presence of algorithm errors. We conducted an experiment to examine how prior face identity decisions influence subsequent human judgements about face similarity. 376 volunteers were asked to rate the similarity of face pairs along a scale. Volunteers performing the task were told that they were reviewing identity decisions made by different sources, either a computer or human, or were told to make their own judgement without prior information. Replicating past results, we found that prior identity decisions, presented as labels, influenced volunteers' own identity judgements. We extend these results as follows. First, we show that the influence of identity decision labels was independent of indicated decision source (human or computer) despite volunteers' greater distrust of human identification ability. Second, applying a signal detection theory framework, we show that prior identity decision labels did not reduce volunteers' attention to the face pair. Discrimination performance was the same with and without the labels. Instead, prior identity decision labels altered volunteers' internal criterion used to judge a face pair as "matching" or "non-matching". This shifted volunteers' face pair similarity judgements by a full step along the response scale. Our work shows how human face matching is affected by prior identity decision labels and we discuss how this may limit the total accuracy of human-algorithm teams performing face matching tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.