ArticlePsychological research2026
Does artificiality matter? Comparing working memory performance for artificial and real faces.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial faces are frequently used in research on perception, attention, working memory, and long-term memory. Although artificial faces offer advantages in terms of standardization, time, and cost, people tend to recognize real human faces more accurately than artificial faces in long-term memory tasks. However, there is no direct comparison of working memory performance between human and artificial faces. This study aims to examine the effect of artificial faces on working memory performance. Additionally, the study investigated the effects of the emotional valence of facial stimuli and the cognitive load of the task on working memory performance.
methodsForty-five adults (18-36 years) completed an n-back task with two conditions: human faces and computer-generated versions of the same identities (artificial faces). Working-memory load was manipulated at two levels (1-back and 2-back), and emotional valence was varied across three levels (neutral, happy, and angry). Sensitivity (d') and reaction times served as dependent measures to examine the effects of stimulus type, cognitive load, and emotional valence on working-memory performance.
resultsResults showed that sensitivity was lower and reaction times were longer for artificial faces compared to the real faces. Moreover, performance decreased as cognitive load increased, whereas the effect of emotional valence was not statistically significant.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that artificial faces are processed less efficiently not only in long-term memory but also in working-memory. The results are discussed within the context of the face-space model and the other-race effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593570What 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.