Content area
Full Text
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.
Traditional research on face perception has tended to focus on two aspects of the problem: recognition of familiar faces and memory for unfamiliar faces. Theoretical models, such as that offered by Bruce and Young (1986), have been used for understanding familiar face recognition in typical observers and neuropsychologically impaired patients. Research on face memory, on the other hand, has tended to be led by difficult forensic problems, such as eyewitness testimony (e.g., Lane & Meissner, 2008; Malpass & Devine, 1981; Searcy, Bartlett, & Memon, 1999; Wells & Olson, 2003).
In recent years, it has become clear that unfamiliar face matching is a problem worthy of study in its own right. At first glance, this might appear to be a simple problem, but recent research has shown that matching unfamiliar faces is, in fact, rather difficult, even when high-quality images are used. Bruce et al. (1999) presented viewers with 1-in- 10 arrays, in which a photo of a young man was accompanied by 10 possible matches. All the images were shown in a very similar pose (full face) and in good lighting and had been taken on the same day, eliminating transient differences due to hairstyle, weight, and so forth. Crucially, target and array photos were taken with different cameras (one a high-quality video camera and one a studio film camera). Under these seemingly optimal conditions, with no time constraints, and with instructions emphasizing accuracy, viewers performed surprisingly poorly. They were accurate only 70% of the time, for both target-present...