Limits...
Learning faces: similar comparator faces do not improve performance.

Jones SP, Dwyer DM, Lewis MB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: 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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

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.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Test accuracy as percentage correct (with SEM) from Experiment 2.Data are organised by exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar, and dissimilar), and are presented as a function of array type (morph or non-morph).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4295853&req=5

pone.0116707.g003: Test accuracy as percentage correct (with SEM) from Experiment 2.Data are organised by exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar, and dissimilar), and are presented as a function of array type (morph or non-morph).

Mentions: Fig. 3 displays percentage of correct responses as a function of exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar and dissimilar) and test type (morph and non-morph). Performance was generally better following repeated exposure compared to brief exposure on both test arrays, but there is little or no difference between the repeated conditions on either array type. A within-subject ANOVA with factors of exposure condition (brief exposure, no comparator, similar exposure and dissimilar exposure) and test type (morph and non-morph) indicated a significant main effect on accuracy depending on exposure condition F(3, 93) = 3.60, p = .016, MSE = 0.067, but no other main effects or interactions (largest F(1, 31) = 1.90, p = .177, MSE = 0.051 for the main effect of test type). Pairwise analysis suggested that brief exposure produced lower accuracy than all other conditions: Similar exposure, F(1, 31) = 6.67, p = .015, MSE = 0.169 B01 = 0.383, dissimilar exposure, F(1, 31) = 5.16, p = .030, MSE = 0.128, B01 = 0.711 and the no comparator condition, F(1, 31) = 10.33, p = .003, MSE = 0.097 B01 = 0.094. No differences were observed between other exposure conditions. That is, comparing the similar exposure to no comparator, F(1, 31) = 0.03, p = .876, MSE = 0.157, B01 = 7.210, and dissimilar comparator, F(1, 31) = 0.72, p = .402, MSE = 0.087, B01 = 5.155 found no advantage for similar comparators. Furthermore, there were no differences between the no-comparator and dissimilar comparator conditions, F(1, 31) = 0.21, p = .647, MSE = 0.164, B01 = 6.576.


Learning faces: similar comparator faces do not improve performance.

Jones SP, Dwyer DM, Lewis MB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Test accuracy as percentage correct (with SEM) from Experiment 2.Data are organised by exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar, and dissimilar), and are presented as a function of array type (morph or non-morph).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4295853&req=5

pone.0116707.g003: Test accuracy as percentage correct (with SEM) from Experiment 2.Data are organised by exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar, and dissimilar), and are presented as a function of array type (morph or non-morph).
Mentions: Fig. 3 displays percentage of correct responses as a function of exposure condition (brief, no-comparator, similar and dissimilar) and test type (morph and non-morph). Performance was generally better following repeated exposure compared to brief exposure on both test arrays, but there is little or no difference between the repeated conditions on either array type. A within-subject ANOVA with factors of exposure condition (brief exposure, no comparator, similar exposure and dissimilar exposure) and test type (morph and non-morph) indicated a significant main effect on accuracy depending on exposure condition F(3, 93) = 3.60, p = .016, MSE = 0.067, but no other main effects or interactions (largest F(1, 31) = 1.90, p = .177, MSE = 0.051 for the main effect of test type). Pairwise analysis suggested that brief exposure produced lower accuracy than all other conditions: Similar exposure, F(1, 31) = 6.67, p = .015, MSE = 0.169 B01 = 0.383, dissimilar exposure, F(1, 31) = 5.16, p = .030, MSE = 0.128, B01 = 0.711 and the no comparator condition, F(1, 31) = 10.33, p = .003, MSE = 0.097 B01 = 0.094. No differences were observed between other exposure conditions. That is, comparing the similar exposure to no comparator, F(1, 31) = 0.03, p = .876, MSE = 0.157, B01 = 7.210, and dissimilar comparator, F(1, 31) = 0.72, p = .402, MSE = 0.087, B01 = 5.155 found no advantage for similar comparators. Furthermore, there were no differences between the no-comparator and dissimilar comparator conditions, F(1, 31) = 0.21, p = .647, MSE = 0.164, B01 = 6.576.

Bottom Line: 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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

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.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus