Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39509017›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

The effect of lineup size on discriminability is dependent on filler similarity and independent of encoding strength.

Allan L Lam, John T Wixted

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Allan L LamDepartment of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. alam@ucsd.edu.
John T WixtedDepartment of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. jwixted@ucsd.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A photo lineup, which consists of one suspect and several physically similar fillers, is often used by the police to test an eyewitness's memory. To optimize memory performance, how similar should the fillers be to the suspect, and how many fillers should be included in the lineup? Recent work suggests that using fillers who match the basic characteristics of the perpetrator (e.g., same age, race, and gender) but who are otherwise maximally dissimilar to the suspect optimizes discriminability. However, the optimal lineup size has been found to vary with filler similarity, with larger lineup sizes increasing or decreasing discriminability depending on whether low-similarity or high-similarity fillers were used, respectively. Because manipulating filler similarity at retrieval affects overall performance, here we investigated whether encoding manipulations that affect overall performance also affect how lineup size influences discriminability. In three experiments, we first replicated prior findings (N = 502), then reduced encoding strength by making study images blurry when low-similarity fillers were used (N = 553), and finally increased encoding strength by repeating study images when high-similarity fillers were used (N = 501). We found that whether overall performance was low or high due these encoding manipulations, discriminability still increased as a function of lineup size when low-similarity fillers were used and decreased as a function of lineup size when high-similarity fillers were used. Thus, lineup size has opposing effects on discriminability when task difficulty is manipulated at retrieval, which narrows the theoretical explanations for why that effect is observed.

Indexed as

Mental RecallPattern Recognition, VisualRecognition, PsychologyAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultEyewitness discriminabilityFiller similarityLineup sizeSignal detection theory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.