Psychological Research

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 167–175 | Cite as

The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition

  • Sarah V. StevenageEmail author
  • Greg J. Neil
  • Jess Barlow
  • Amy Dyson
  • Catherine Eaton-Brown
  • Beth Parsons
Original Article


The results of two experiments are presented which explore the effect of distractor items on face and voice recognition. Following from the suggestion that voice processing is relatively weak compared to face processing, it was anticipated that voice recognition would be more affected by the presentation of distractor items between study and test compared to face recognition. Using a sequential matching task with a fixed interval between study and test that either incorporated distractor items or did not, the results supported our prediction. Face recognition remained strong irrespective of the number of distractor items between study and test. In contrast, voice recognition was significantly impaired by the presence of distractor items regardless of their number (Experiment 1). This pattern remained whether distractor items were highly similar to the targets or not (Experiment 2). These results offer support for the proposal that voice processing is a relatively vulnerable method of identification.


Face Recognition Stimulus Type Critical Lure Voice Recognition Distractor Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, O. O., & Wittlenger, R. P. (1975). Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsics, C., & Brédart, S. (2011). Recalling episodic information about personally known faces and voices. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 303–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsics, C., & Brédart, S. (2012). Recalling semantic information about newly learned faces and voices. Memory, 20(5), 527–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brédart, S., Barsics, C., & Hanley, R. (2009). Recalling semantic information about personally known faces and voices. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1013–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., & Johnston, R. A. (1990). Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 361–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clifford, B. R. (1980). Voice identification by human listeners: On earwitness reliability. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, S., & Wilding, J. (1997). Earwitness Testimony 2: Voices, Faces and Context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damjanovic, L. (2011). The face advantage in recalling episodic information: Implications for modelling human memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 309–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damjanovic, L., & Hanley, J. R. (2007). Recalling episodic and semantic information about famous faces and voices. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, H. D., Jones, D. M., & Mosdell, N. (1997). Intra- and inter-modal repetition priming of familiar faces and voices. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 143–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanley, J. R., & Damjanovic, L. (2009). It is more difficult to retrieve a familiar person’s name and occupation from their voice than from their blurred face. Memory, 17, 830–839.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanley, J. R., Smith, S. T., & Hadfield, J. (1998). I recognise you but can’t place you. An investigation of familiar-only experiences during tests of voice and face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A(1), 179–195.Google Scholar
  13. Hanley, J. R., & Turner, J. M. (2000). Why are familiar-only experiences more frequent for voices than for faces? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1105–1116.Google Scholar
  14. Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerstholt, J. H., Jansen, N. H. M., van Amelsvoort, A. G., & Broeders, A. P. A. (2006). Earwitnesses: Effects of accent, retention and telephone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McAllister, H. A., Dale, R. H. I., Bregman, N. J., McCabe, A., & Cotton, C. R. (1993). When eyewitnesses are also earwitnesses: Effects on visual and voice identifications. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(2), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGehee, F. (1937). The reliability of the identification of the human voice. Journal of General Psychology, 17, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saslove, H., & Yarmey, A. D. (1980). Long-term auditory memory: Speaker identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 111–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schweinberger, S. R., Herholz, A., & Stief, V. (1997). Auditory long-term memory: Repetition priming of voice recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 498–517.Google Scholar
  20. Stevenage, S. V., Howland, A., & Tippelt, A. (2011). Interference in eyewitness and earwitness recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stevenage, S. V., Hugill, A. R., & Lewis, H. G. (2012). Integrating voice recognition into models of person perception. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  22. Yarmey, A. D. (1995). Earwitness speaker identification. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1(4), 792–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah V. Stevenage
    • 1
    Email author
  • Greg J. Neil
    • 1
  • Jess Barlow
    • 1
  • Amy Dyson
    • 1
  • Catherine Eaton-Brown
    • 1
  • Beth Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology, University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations