Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087335›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Normative face recognition ability test scores vary across online participant pools.

B Popovic, J D Dunn, A Towler, D White

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Judgment of Learning Reactivity for Emotional Faces.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Time Pressure Increases Automation Reliance in a Face Matching Task.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
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

4 authors.

B PopovicSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J D DunnSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
A TowlerSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
D WhiteSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. david.white@unsw.edu.au.

Funding

Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) DE210100357Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) DP190100957Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) FT200100353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online participant recruitment is a cornerstone of modern psychology research. While this offers clear benefits for studying individual differences in cognitive abilities, test performance can vary across lab-based and web-based settings. Here we assess the stability of normative test scores across popular online recruitment platforms and in-person testing, for three standard measures of face identity processing ability: the GFMT2, CFMT+ , and MFMT. Participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) scored approximately 10 percentage points lower in all tests compared to those recruited through Prolific and university students tested in the lab. Applying stricter exclusion criteria based on attention checks resulted in notably higher exclusion rates for the MTurk group (~ 62%) compared to the Prolific group (~ 22%), yet even after exclusion, some test scores remained lower for MTurk participants. Given that the GFMT2 subtests were developed using MTurk participants, we provide updated normative scores for all subtests (GFMT2-Short, GFMT2-Low, GFMT2-High) and further recommendations for their use. We also confirm the robust psychometric properties of the GFMT2-Short and GFMT2-High, demonstrating strong test-retest reliability, convergent validity with other established tests, and high diagnostic value in identifying super-recognisers. The GFMT2 subtests are freely available for use in both online and in-person research via www.gfmt2.org .

Indexed as

Facial RecognitionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansInternetMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultCambridge face memory testCongenital prosopagnosiaDevelopmental prosopagnosiaFace processingFace recognitionGlasgow face matching testIndividual differencesProsopagnosiaSuper-recognizers

Identifiers

PMID40087335
PMCPMC11909149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.