Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 286–291

The Glasgow Face Matching Test

Article

Abstract

We describe a new test for unfamiliar face matching, the Glasgow Face Matching Test (GFMT). Viewers are shown pairs of faces, photographed in full-face view but with different cameras, and are asked to make same/different judgments. The full version of the test comprises 168 face pairs, and we also describe a shortened version with 40 pairs. We provide normative data for these tests derived from large subject samples. We also describe associations between the GFMT and other tests of matching and memory. The new test correlates moderately with face memory but more strongly with object matching, a result that is consistent with previous research highlighting a link between object and face matching, specific to unfamiliar faces. The test is available free for scientific use.

References

  1. Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K. S., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, O. (1983). Contributions to neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 207–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J. B., & White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 256–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2002). Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure. Perception, 31, 985–994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2004). Matching as an index of face familiarity. Visual Cognition, 11, 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2005). Demonstrating how unfamiliar faces become familiar using a face matching task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, J., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44, 576–585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2008). 100% accuracy in automatic face recognition. Science, 319, 435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A “middle road” approach to bridging the basic-applied divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (1999). Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 538–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Warrington, E. K. (1984). Recognition Memory Test. Windsor, U.K.: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  23. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness identification. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295.bet 10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Glasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowScotland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations