ArticlePloS one2026
Does visual attention to diagnostic facial features predict eyewitness identification accuracy? Implications for diagnostic feature detection theory.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A police lineup includes a suspect and known-innocent fillers. The purpose of fillers is to protect an innocent suspect as witnesses must rely on their memory to make a lineup decision (i.e., select or reject). Diagnostic Feature Detection theory proposes that witnesses compare facial features across lineup members, weighting shared and non-shared features differently during the decision process (Wixted & Mickes, 2014). According to this view, only non-shared features are diagnostic because they provide distinguishing information, compared to features that are shared amongst all lineup members. Using eyetracking, we examined eyewitnesses' viewing behavior and decision making in lineups when features amongst lineup members were shared. After encoding twelve target faces (six Black, six White), participants (n = 100) made identification decisions on target-present lineups (one lineup per target), with lineup members presented either simultaneously or sequentially, providing confidence after each lineup decision. In the shared-feature lineups, we digitally edited one of the target's features (nose, eyes, or mouth) onto all lineup members so that they shared that feature (e.g., in one lineup, all members had the target's eyes). In the control lineups, we edited each lineup member's own feature (nose, eyes, or mouth) to control for effects of photoshopping. Results indicate there were no differences in allocation of overt visual attention (via eye movements) to diagnostic features between lineup types or by accuracy. These findings do not support the proposition that eyewitnesses overtly evaluate shared features in lineups, or account for their diagnosticity via allocation of overt visual attention.
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.