You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs

Queues, crowds, and angry mobs: Face identification under distraction in a virtual airport

In visual environments, selective attention must be employed to focus on task-relevant stimuli. A key question here concerns the extent to which other stimuli within the visual field influence target processing. In this study, we ask whether face identity matching is subject to similar effects from irrelevant stimuli in the visual field, specifically task-irrelevant people. Although most previous studies rely on highly controlled face and body stimuli presented in isolation, here we use a more realistic environment. Participants take the role of passport officers and must match a person's face to their photo-ID, while other people appear in the background, waiting to be processed. Presenting an interactive virtual environment on screen (Experiments 1 and 2) or in immersive VR (Experiment 3), we generally found no evidence for distraction from background people on face-matching accuracy. However, when immersed in VR, an angry crowd in the background delayed matching speed while not affecting accuracy. We discuss the theoretical implications of these results and their potential importance in practical settings.

How one block of trials influences the next: persistent effects of disease prevalence and feedback on decisions about images of skin lesions in a large online study

Using an online, medical image labeling app, 803 individuals rated images of skin lesions as either "melanoma" (skin cancer) or "nevus" (a skin mole). Each block consisted of 80 images. Blocks could have high (50%) or low (20%) target prevalence and could provide full, accurate feedback or no feedback. As in prior work, with feedback, decision criteria were more conservative at low prevalence than at high prevalence and resulted in more miss errors. Without feedback, this low prevalence effect was reversed (albeit, not significantly). Participants could participate in up to four different conditions a day on each of 6 days. Our main interest was in the effect of Block N on Block N + 1. Low prevalence with feedback made participants more conservative on a subsequent block. High prevalence with feedback made participants more liberal on a subsequent block. Conditions with no feedback had no significant impact on the subsequent block. The delay between Blocks 1 and 2 had no significant effect. The effect on the second half of Block 2 was just as large as on the first half. Medical expertise (over the range available in the study) had no impact on these effects, though medical students were better at the task than other groups. Overall, these seem to be robust effects where feedback may be 'teaching' participants how to respond in the future. This might have application in, for example, training or re-training situations.

Low prevalence match and mismatch detection in simultaneous face matching: Influence of face recognition ability and feature focus guidance

Simultaneous face matching to verify identity is key to security and policing. However, matching is error-prone, particularly when target-item prevalence is low. Two experiments examined whether superior face recognition ability and the use of internal or external facial feature guidance scales would reduce low prevalence effects. In Experiment 1, super-recognisers (n = 317) significantly outperformed typical-ability controls (n = 452), while internal feature guidance enhanced accuracy across all prevalence conditions. However, an unexpected effect in controls revealed higher accuracy in low prevalence conditions, probably because no low-match or low-mismatch prevalence information was provided. In Experiment 2, top-end-of-typical range ability participants (n = 841) were informed of their low prevalence condition and demonstrated the expected low-prevalence effects. Findings and implications are discussed.

Feedback moderates the effect of prevalence on perceptual decisions

How does the prevalence of a target influence how it is perceived and categorized? A substantial body of work, mostly in visual search, shows that a higher proportion of targets are missed when prevalence is low. This classic low prevalence effect (LPE) involves a shift to a more conservative decision criterion that makes it less likely that observers will call an ambiguous item a target. In contrast, Levari et al. (Science, 360[6396], 1465-1467, 2018) recently reported the opposite effect in a simple categorization task. In their hands, at low prevalence, observers adopted a more liberal criterion, making observers more likely to label ambiguous dots on a blue-purple continuum "blue." They called this "prevalence-induced concept change" (PICC). Here, we report that the presence or absence of feedback is critical. With feedback, observers become more conservative at low prevalence, as in the LPE. Without feedback, they become more liberal, identifying a wider range of stimuli as targets, as in Levari's PICC studies. Stimuli from a shape continuum ranging from rounded ("Bouba") to bumpy ("Kiki") shapes produced similar results. Other variables: response type (2AFC vs. go/no-go), color (blue-purple vs. red-green), and stimuli type (solid color vs. texture) did not influence the criterion shifts. Understanding these effects of prevalence and ways they can be controlled illuminates the context-specific nature of perceptual decisions and may be useful in socially important, low prevalence tasks like cancer screening, airport security, and disease diagnosis in pathology.

When experience does not promote expertise: security professionals fail to detect low prevalence fake IDs

Professional screeners frequently verify photograph IDs in such industries as professional security, bar tending, and sales of age-restricted materials. Moreover, security screening is a vital tool for law enforcement in the search for missing or wanted persons. Nevertheless, previous research demonstrates that novice participants fail to spot fake IDs when they are rare (i.e., the low prevalence effect; LPE). To address whether this phenomenon also occurs with professional screeners, we conducted three experiments. Experiment 1 compared security professional and non-professionals. Experiment 2 compared bar-security professionals, access-security professionals, and non-professionals. Finally, Experiment 3 added a newly created Professional Identity Training Questionnaire to determine whether and how aspects of professionals’ employment predict ID-matching accuracy. Across all three experiments, all participants were susceptible to the LPE regardless of professional status. Neither length/type of professional experience nor length/type of training experience affected ID verification performance. We discuss task performance and survey responses with aims to acknowledge and address this potential problem in real-world screening scenarios.