It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Mask wearing has been required in various settings since the outbreak of COVID-19, and research has shown that identity judgements are difficult for faces wearing masks. To date, however, the majority of experiments on face identification with masked faces tested humans and computer algorithms using images with superimposed masks rather than images of people wearing real face coverings. In three experiments we test humans (control participants and super-recognisers) and algorithms with images showing different types of face coverings. In all experiments we tested matching concealed or unconcealed faces to an unconcealed reference image, and we found a consistent decrease in face matching accuracy with masked compared to unconcealed faces. In Experiment 1, typical human observers were most accurate at face matching with unconcealed images, and poorer for three different types of superimposed mask conditions. In Experiment 2, we tested both typical observers and super-recognisers with superimposed and real face masks, and found that performance was poorer for real compared to superimposed masks. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with algorithms. Our results highlight the importance of testing both humans and algorithms with real face masks, as using only superimposed masks may underestimate their detrimental effect on face identification.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 University of Lincoln, School of Psychology, Lincoln, UK (GRID:grid.36511.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 0420 4262)
2 University of Stirling, Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Stirling, UK (GRID:grid.11918.30) (ISNI:0000 0001 2248 4331); University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, Australia (GRID:grid.1010.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7304)
3 University of Greenwich, School of Human Sciences, Institute of Lifecourse Development, London, UK (GRID:grid.36316.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 0806 5472)
4 University of Huddersfield, School of Human and Health Sciences, Huddersfield, UK (GRID:grid.15751.37) (ISNI:0000 0001 0719 6059)
5 University of Reading, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Reading, UK (GRID:grid.9435.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0457 9566)
6 University of Stirling, Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Stirling, UK (GRID:grid.11918.30) (ISNI:0000 0001 2248 4331)