Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38302820›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

Face masks and fake masks: the effect of real and superimposed masks on face matching with super-recognisers, typical observers, and algorithms.

Kay L Ritchie, Daniel J Carragher, Josh P Davis, Katie Read, Ryan E Jenkins, Eilidh Noyes, Katie L H Gray, Peter J B Hancock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Time Pressure Increases Automation Reliance in a Face Matching Task.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kay L RitchieSchool of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK. kritchie@lincoln.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1348-760X
Daniel J CarragherPsychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Josh P DavisSchool of Human Sciences, Institute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Katie ReadSchool of Human Sciences, Institute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Ryan E JenkinsSchool of Human Sciences, Institute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Eilidh NoyesSchool of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
Katie L H GraySchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Peter J B HancockPsychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
University of Greenwich · GBUniversity of Stirling · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GBUniversity of Reading · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mask wearing has been required in various settings since the outbreak of COVID-19, and research has shown that identity judgements are difficult for faces wearing masks. To date, however, the majority of experiments on face identification with masked faces tested humans and computer algorithms using images with superimposed masks rather than images of people wearing real face coverings. In three experiments we test humans (control participants and super-recognisers) and algorithms with images showing different types of face coverings. In all experiments we tested matching concealed or unconcealed faces to an unconcealed reference image, and we found a consistent decrease in face matching accuracy with masked compared to unconcealed faces. In Experiment 1, typical human observers were most accurate at face matching with unconcealed images, and poorer for three different types of superimposed mask conditions. In Experiment 2, we tested both typical observers and super-recognisers with superimposed and real face masks, and found that performance was poorer for real compared to superimposed masks. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with algorithms. Our results highlight the importance of testing both humans and algorithms with real face masks, as using only superimposed masks may underestimate their detrimental effect on face identification.

Indexed as

COVID-19MasksAlgorithmsDisease OutbreaksHumansAutomatic face recognitionFace masksFace matchingSuper-recognisers

Identifiers

PMID38302820
PMCPMC10834892
OpenAlexW4391672913

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.