Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38902539›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

Trust in automation and the accuracy of human-algorithm teams performing one-to-one face matching tasks.

Daniel J Carragher, Daniel Sturman, Peter J B Hancock

Abstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Time Pressure Increases Automation Reliance in a Face Matching Task.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Daniel J CarragherSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. daniel.carragher@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2265-4737
Daniel SturmanSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Peter J B HancockPsychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/N007743/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human face is commonly used for identity verification. While this task was once exclusively performed by humans, technological advancements have seen automated facial recognition systems (AFRS) integrated into many identification scenarios. Although many state-of-the-art AFRS are exceptionally accurate, they often require human oversight or involvement, such that a human operator actions the final decision. Previously, we have shown that on average, humans assisted by a simulated AFRS (sAFRS) failed to reach the level of accuracy achieved by the same sAFRS alone, due to overturning the system's correct decisions and/or failing to correct sAFRS errors. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether participants' trust in automation was related to their performance on a one-to-one face matching task when assisted by a sAFRS. Participants (n = 160) completed a standard face matching task in two phases: an unassisted baseline phase, and an assisted phase where they were shown the identification decision (95% accurate) made by a sAFRS prior to submitting their own decision. While most participants improved with sAFRS assistance, those with greater relative trust in automation achieved larger gains in performance. However, the average aided performance of participants still failed to reach that of the sAFRS alone, regardless of trust status. Nonetheless, further analysis revealed a small sample of participants who achieved 100% accuracy when aided by the sAFRS. Our results speak to the importance of considering individual differences when selecting employees for roles requiring human-algorithm interaction, including identity verification tasks that incorporate facial recognition technologies.

Indexed as

Automated Facial RecognitionAutomationTrustAdultAlgorithmsFacial RecognitionFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCollaborative decision-makingFace recognitionHuman–computer interactionHuman factorsIdentity verification

Identifiers

PMID38902539
PMCPMC11190114

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.