ArticleBehavior research methods2025
EGEFACE: A new face memory test with static and dynamic images.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Face memory is a crucial cognitive ability necessary for maintaining a healthy social life. Recent studies reveal large individual differences in face recognition ability. Face memory tests are used to evaluate this ability. The main purpose of this study was to develop a new face memory test (EGEFACE) addressing the limitations of existing tests using both static and dynamic stimuli to increase ecological validity; employing face recognition algorithms to adjust test difficulty; measuring face memory accuracy independently of response bias by including both target-absent and target-present trials and using ROC analysis; and developing a test to measure both ends of the face recognition ability spectrum. After building a new database of static and dynamic faces, we created three difficulty levels using a face recognition algorithm. We collected data from 703 participants in two steps and examined the internal consistency, split-half reliability, and item-total score correlations. The reliability analysis confirmed that both target-absent and target-present trials of EGEFACE were reliable. High EGEFACE performers scored near super recognizer levels on CFMT+, while low performers showed limited overlap with prosopagnosic-level performance on CFMT+, suggesting EGEFACE's sensitivity across different levels of face recognition ability. Overall, results indicated a moderate positive correlation between EGEFACE and CFMT+, showing that both tests assess similar cognitive skills, while a low to moderate correlation with KFMT suggests that EGEFACE measures cognitive ability that is related to yet distinct from face perception. The results suggest that EGEFACE shows promise as an ecologically valid and effective alternative tool for assessing individual differences in face memory.
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.