ArticlePerception2025
Face matching as a majority: Getting the best from a crowd.
Article in Perception, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For unfamiliar faces, deciding whether two photographs depict the same person or not can be difficult. One way to substantially improve accuracy is to defer to the 'wisdom of crowds' by aggregating responses across multiple individuals. However, there are several methods available for doing this. Here, we investigated performance in three tests of unfamiliar face matching. In all cases, we found that going with the option chosen by the majority of people provided the best approach. No benefit was found by weighting an option's popularity using average confidence, while choosing the 'surprisingly popular' option resulted in a sizeable decrease in accuracy. Therefore, rather than incorporating metacognitive judgements, we endorse a simple majority vote for this particular task.
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.