ArticleApplied cognitive psychology
Perceptual Expertise of Forensic Examiners and Reviewers on Tests of Cross-Race and Disguised Face Identification and Face Memory.
Article in Applied cognitive psychology. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forensic facial professionals have been shown in previous studies to identify people from frontal face images more accurately than untrained participants when given 30 s per face pair. We tested whether this superiority holds in more challenging conditions. Two groups of forensic facial professionals (examiners, reviewers) and untrained participants were tested in three lab-based tasks: other-race face identification, disguised face identification, and face memory. For other-race face identification, on same-race faces, examiners were superior to controls; on different-race identification, examiners and controls performed comparably. Examiners were superior to controls for impersonation disguise, but not consistently superior for evasion disguise. Examiners' performance on the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT+) was marginally better than reviewers and controls. We conclude that under laboratory-style conditions, professional examiners' identification superiority does not generalize completely to other-race and disguised faces. Future work should administer other-race and disguise face identification tests that allow forensic professionals to follow methods and procedures they typically use in casework.
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.