法医审查员和审稿人在跨种族和伪装人脸识别和人脸记忆测试中的知觉专长。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Applied Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1002/acp.70002
Amy N. Yates, Jacqueline G. Cavazos, Géraldine Jeckeln, Ying Hu, Eilidh Noyes, Carina A. Hahn, Alice J. O'Toole, P. Jonathon Phillips
{"title":"法医审查员和审稿人在跨种族和伪装人脸识别和人脸记忆测试中的知觉专长。","authors":"Amy N. Yates,&nbsp;Jacqueline G. Cavazos,&nbsp;Géraldine Jeckeln,&nbsp;Ying Hu,&nbsp;Eilidh Noyes,&nbsp;Carina A. Hahn,&nbsp;Alice J. O'Toole,&nbsp;P. Jonathon Phillips","doi":"10.1002/acp.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48281,"journal":{"name":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11617500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptual Expertise of Forensic Examiners and Reviewers on Tests of Cross-Race and Disguised Face Identification and Face Memory\",\"authors\":\"Amy N. Yates,&nbsp;Jacqueline G. Cavazos,&nbsp;Géraldine Jeckeln,&nbsp;Ying Hu,&nbsp;Eilidh Noyes,&nbsp;Carina A. Hahn,&nbsp;Alice J. O'Toole,&nbsp;P. Jonathon Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acp.70002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"38 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11617500/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70002\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在之前的研究中,法医面部专家比未经训练的参与者更能准确地从正面人脸图像中识别出人脸。我们测试了这种优势在更具挑战性的条件下是否仍然存在。两组法医面部专家(审查员、审稿人)和未经训练的参与者接受了三个基于实验室的任务测试:其他种族的面部识别、伪装的面部识别和面部记忆。对于其他种族的面孔识别,在同一种族的面孔上,审查员优于对照组;在不同种族的识别上,审查员和对照组的表现相当。考官在伪装方面优于控制组,但在逃避伪装方面并不总是优于控制组。主考官在剑桥面部记忆测试(CFMT+)上的表现略好于审稿人和对照组。在实验室条件下,专业审查员的识别优势并不完全推广到其他种族和伪装的面孔。未来的工作应该进行其他种族和伪装面部识别测试,使法医专业人员能够遵循他们在案件工作中通常使用的方法和程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perceptual Expertise of Forensic Examiners and Reviewers on Tests of Cross-Race and Disguised Face Identification and Face Memory

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Applied Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Applied Cognitive Psychology seeks to publish the best papers dealing with psychological analyses of memory, learning, thinking, problem solving, language, and consciousness as they occur in the real world. Applied Cognitive Psychology will publish papers on a wide variety of issues and from diverse theoretical perspectives. The journal focuses on studies of human performance and basic cognitive skills in everyday environments including, but not restricted to, studies of eyewitness memory, autobiographical memory, spatial cognition, skill training, expertise and skilled behaviour. Articles will normally combine realistic investigations of real world events with appropriate theoretical analyses and proper appraisal of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Still Lost in the Mall—False Memories Happen and That's What Matters The False Balance Effect: Exploring Partition Dependence as a Potential Explanation Weaving Bonds: Constructing a Model to Unveil the Role of Relationship Memories in Satisfaction Training Humans to Detect Children's Lies Through Their Facial Expressions The Effect of Fake News on Memory for True Events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1