IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0116707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning Faces: Similar Comparator Faces Do Not Improve Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Scott P Jones
  • Dominic M Dwyer
  • Michael B Lewis

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates that comparison of two similar faces can aid subsequent discrimination between them. However, the fact that discrimination between two faces is facilitated by comparing them directly does not demonstrate that comparison produces a general improvement in the processing of faces. It remains an open question whether the opportunity to compare a “target” face to similar faces can facilitate the discrimination of the exposed target face from other nonexposed faces. In Experiment 1, selection of a target face from an array of novel foils was not facilitated by intermixed exposure to the target and comparators of the same sex. Experiment 2 also found no advantage for similar comparators (morphed towards the target) over unmorphed same sex comparators, or over repeated target exposure alone. But all repeated exposure conditions produced better performance than a single brief presentation of the target. Experiment 3 again demonstrated that repeated exposure produced equivalent learning in same sex and different sex comparator conditions, and also showed that increasing the number of same sex or different sex comparators failed to improve identification. In all three experiments, exposure to a target alongside similar comparators failed to support selection of the target from novel test stimuli to a greater degree than exposure alongside dissimilar comparators or repeated target exposure alone. The current results suggest that the facilitatory effects of comparison during exposure may be limited to improving discrimination between exposed stimuli, and thus our results do not support the idea that providing the opportunity for comparison is a practical means for improving face identification.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott P Jones & Dominic M Dwyer & Michael B Lewis, 2015. "Learning Faces: Similar Comparator Faces Do Not Improve Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116707
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116707
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116707&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0116707?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. null null, 2015. "A Review of:," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 12(4), pages 452-454, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang Yang & Shaoyi Du & Zhuo Chen, 2016. "A Method for Non-Rigid Face Alignment via Combining Local and Holistic Matching," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Camos Daurella,Daniel & Estache,Antonio, 2017. "Regulating water and sanitation network services accounting for institutional and informational constraints," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8149, The World Bank.
    2. Hoces de la Guardia, Fernando, 2017. "How Transparency and Reproducibility Can Increase Credibility in Policy Analysis: A Case Study of the Minimum Wage Policy Estimate," MetaArXiv ba7tr, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.