ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024
The role of facial distinctiveness in the prioritisation of targets in disjunctive dual-target face search.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Item analyses of the 20-item prosopagnosia index using classical test theory and item response theory.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two experiments explored the search for pairs of faces in a disjunctive dual-target face search (DDTFS) task for unfamiliar face targets. The distinctiveness of the target was manipulated such that both faces were typical or distinctive or contained one typical and one distinctive target. Targets were searched for in arrays of eight faces. In Experiment 1, participants completed a DDTFS block with targets learnt over the block of trials. In Experiment 2, the dual-target block was preceded by two training blocks of single-target trials. Participants also completed the upright and inverted long-form Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT+). The results showed that searching for two typical faces leads to one target being prioritised at the expense of the other. The ability to search for non-prioritised typical faces was associated with scores on the CFMT+. This association disappeared when faces were learnt before completing DDTFS. We interpret the findings in terms of the impact of typicality on face learning, individual differences in the ability to learn faces, and the involvement of capacity-limited working memory in the search for unfamiliar faces. The findings have implications for security-related situations where agents must search for multiple unfamiliar faces having been shown their images.
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.