大多数人的脸部匹配:从人群中获得最好的。

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Robin S S Kramer, Natália Javorková
{"title":"大多数人的脸部匹配:从人群中获得最好的。","authors":"Robin S S Kramer, Natália Javorková","doi":"10.1177/03010066241303705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For unfamiliar faces, deciding whether two photographs depict the same person or not can be difficult. One way to substantially improve accuracy is to defer to the 'wisdom of crowds' by aggregating responses across multiple individuals. However, there are several methods available for doing this. Here, we investigated performance in three tests of unfamiliar face matching. In all cases, we found that going with the option chosen by the majority of people provided the best approach. No benefit was found by weighting an option's popularity using average confidence, while choosing the 'surprisingly popular' option resulted in a sizeable decrease in accuracy. Therefore, rather than incorporating metacognitive judgements, we endorse a simple majority vote for this particular task.</p>","PeriodicalId":49708,"journal":{"name":"Perception","volume":" ","pages":"3010066241303705"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Face matching as a majority: Getting the best from a crowd.\",\"authors\":\"Robin S S Kramer, Natália Javorková\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03010066241303705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>For unfamiliar faces, deciding whether two photographs depict the same person or not can be difficult. One way to substantially improve accuracy is to defer to the 'wisdom of crowds' by aggregating responses across multiple individuals. However, there are several methods available for doing this. Here, we investigated performance in three tests of unfamiliar face matching. In all cases, we found that going with the option chosen by the majority of people provided the best approach. No benefit was found by weighting an option's popularity using average confidence, while choosing the 'surprisingly popular' option resulted in a sizeable decrease in accuracy. Therefore, rather than incorporating metacognitive judgements, we endorse a simple majority vote for this particular task.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perception\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3010066241303705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066241303705\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perception","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066241303705","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于不熟悉的面孔,判断两张照片是否描绘的是同一个人可能会很困难。有效提高准确性的一种方法是通过汇总多个个体的反应来遵从“群体智慧”。然而,有几种方法可以做到这一点。在这里,我们研究了在三个不熟悉面孔匹配测试中的表现。在所有情况下,我们发现大多数人选择的选项提供了最好的方法。使用平均置信度对一个选项的受欢迎程度进行加权并没有发现任何好处,而选择“非常受欢迎”的选项则导致准确性大幅下降。因此,我们不考虑元认知判断,而是支持对这个特定任务进行简单多数投票。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Face matching as a majority: Getting the best from a crowd.

For unfamiliar faces, deciding whether two photographs depict the same person or not can be difficult. One way to substantially improve accuracy is to defer to the 'wisdom of crowds' by aggregating responses across multiple individuals. However, there are several methods available for doing this. Here, we investigated performance in three tests of unfamiliar face matching. In all cases, we found that going with the option chosen by the majority of people provided the best approach. No benefit was found by weighting an option's popularity using average confidence, while choosing the 'surprisingly popular' option resulted in a sizeable decrease in accuracy. Therefore, rather than incorporating metacognitive judgements, we endorse a simple majority vote for this particular task.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perception
Perception 医学-心理学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
74
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Perception is a traditional print journal covering all areas of the perceptual sciences, but with a strong historical emphasis on perceptual illusions. Perception is a subscription journal, free for authors to publish their research as a Standard Article, Short Report or Short & Sweet. The journal also publishes Editorials and Book Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信