Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The results of two experiments are presented which explore the effect of distractor items on face and voice recognition. Following from the suggestion that voice processing is relatively weak compared to face processing, it was anticipated that voice recognition would be more affected by the presentation of distractor items between study and test compared to face recognition. Using a sequential matching task with a fixed interval between study and test that either incorporated distractor items or did not, the results supported our prediction. Face recognition remained strong irrespective of the number of distractor items between study and test. In contrast, voice recognition was significantly impaired by the presence of distractor items regardless of their number (Experiment 1). This pattern remained whether distractor items were highly similar to the targets or not (Experiment 2). These results offer support for the proposal that voice processing is a relatively vulnerable method of identification.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, O. O., & Wittlenger, R. P. (1975). Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104, 54–75. CrossRef
Brédart, S., Barsics, C., & Hanley, R. (2009). Recalling semantic information about personally known faces and voices. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1013–1021. CrossRef
Clifford, B. R. (1980). Voice identification by human listeners: On earwitness reliability. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 373–394. CrossRef
Cook, S., & Wilding, J. (1997). Earwitness Testimony 2: Voices, Faces and Context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 527–541. CrossRef
Damjanovic, L., & Hanley, J. R. (2007). Recalling episodic and semantic information about famous faces and voices. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1205–1210. CrossRef
Hanley, J. R., Smith, S. T., & Hadfield, J. (1998). I recognise you but can’t place you. An investigation of familiar-only experiences during tests of voice and face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A(1), 179–195.
Hanley, J. R., & Turner, J. M. (2000). Why are familiar-only experiences more frequent for voices than for faces? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1105–1116.
Kerstholt, J. H., Jansen, N. H. M., van Amelsvoort, A. G., & Broeders, A. P. A. (2006). Earwitnesses: Effects of accent, retention and telephone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 187–197. CrossRef
McAllister, H. A., Dale, R. H. I., Bregman, N. J., McCabe, A., & Cotton, C. R. (1993). When eyewitnesses are also earwitnesses: Effects on visual and voice identifications. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14(2), 161–170. CrossRef
McGehee, F. (1937). The reliability of the identification of the human voice. Journal of General Psychology, 17, 249–271. CrossRef
Schweinberger, S. R., Herholz, A., & Stief, V. (1997). Auditory long-term memory: Repetition priming of voice recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 498–517.
Stevenage, S. V., Howland, A., & Tippelt, A. (2011). Interference in eyewitness and earwitness recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 112–118. CrossRef
Stevenage, S. V., Hugill, A. R., & Lewis, H. G. (2012). Integrating voice recognition into models of person perception. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (in press).
Yarmey, A. D. (1995). Earwitness speaker identification. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1(4), 792–816. CrossRef
- The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition
Sarah V. Stevenage
Greg J. Neil