4.2 Article

Are super-face-recognisers also super-voice-recognisers? Evidence from cross-modal identification tasks

期刊

APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 590-605

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3813

关键词

face recognition; policing; super‐ recognition; voice matching; voice recognition

资金

  1. University of Greenwich [2017/2018]
  2. EPSRC [EP/R030839/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual differences in face identification ability range from prosopagnosia to super-recognition. This study found that face identification ability can predict voice identification ability. Individuals with exceptional face memory and matching skills performed better in voice memory and voice matching tasks. Cross-modality and cross-task mechanisms can explain these superior performances.
Individual differences in face identification ability range from prosopagnosia to super-recognition. The current study examined whether face identification ability predicts voice identification ability (participants: N = 529). Superior-face-identifiers (exceptional at face memory and matching), superior-face-recognisers (exceptional at face memory only), superior-face-matchers (exceptional face matchers only), and controls completed the Bangor Voice Matching Test, Glasgow Voice Memory Test, and a Famous Voice Recognition Test. Meeting predictions, those possessing exceptional face memory and matching skills outperformed typical-range face groups at voice memory and voice matching respectively. Proportionally more super-face-identifiers also achieved our super-voice-recogniser criteria on two or more tests. Underlying cross-modality (voices vs. faces) and cross-task (memory vs. perception) mechanisms may therefore drive superior performances. Dissociations between Glasgow Voice Memory Test voice and bell recognition also suggest voice-specific effects to match those found with faces. These findings have applied implications for policing, particularly in cases when only suspect voice clips are available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据