Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2013 | Original Article

The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition

Auteurs: Sarah V. Stevenage, Greg J. Neil, Jess Barlow, Amy Dyson, Catherine Eaton-Brown, Beth Parsons

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2013

Abstract

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.

vorige artikel The effects of an unexpected spider stimulus on skin conductance responses and eye movements: an inattentional blindness study

volgende artikel Overtraining and the use of feature and geometric cues for reorientation

Analysis in signal detection terms enables scrutiny of both sensitivity of discrimination (d’) and bias (C). Analysis of bias here revealed no effects either of the number of intervening stimuli (F _{(2, 76)} < 1, ns), stimulus type (F _{(1, 38)} < 1, ns) or their interaction (F _{(2, 76)} < 1, ns).

As in Experiment 1, analysis of bias is included here to explore the effect of stimulus type, distraction and distractor strength on responding. Only one interaction emerged as a weak effect (distraction x stimulus type: F _{(2, 122)} = 3.23, p < .05, ή² = .05). However, there was no effect of distraction on bias for faces (F _{(2, 64)} = 1.17, ns) or voices (F _{(2, 62)} = 2.53, ns), and there was no significant difference in levels of bias between faces and voices at either zero distractors (t ₍₆₃₎ = −1.53, ns), two distractors (t ₍₆₃₎ = 1.20, ns) or four distractors (t ₍₆₃₎ = −1.61, ns). This interaction instead seemed to capture a reversal of small levels of bias between faces and voices when there were two distractors. No other main effects of interactions reached significance (Fs < 1.38, ns).

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

Barsics, C., & Brédart, S. (2011). Recalling episodic information about personally known faces and voices. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 303–308.PubMedCrossRef

Barsics, C., & Brédart, S. (2012). Recalling semantic information about newly learned faces and voices. Memory, 20(5), 527–534.PubMedCrossRef

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

Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., & Johnston, R. A. (1990). Understanding face recognition with an interactive activation model. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 361–380.PubMedCrossRef

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. (2011). The face advantage in recalling episodic information: Implications for modelling human memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 309–311.PubMedCrossRef

Damjanovic, L., & Hanley, J. R. (2007). Recalling episodic and semantic information about famous faces and voices. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1205–1210.CrossRef

Ellis, H. D., Jones, D. M., & Mosdell, N. (1997). Intra- and inter-modal repetition priming of familiar faces and voices. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 143–156.PubMedCrossRef

Hanley, J. R., & Damjanovic, L. (2009). It is more difficult to retrieve a familiar person’s name and occupation from their voice than from their blurred face. Memory, 17, 830–839.PubMedCrossRef

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.

Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185–198.PubMedCrossRef

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

Saslove, H., & Yarmey, A. D. (1980). Long-term auditory memory: Speaker identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 111–116.PubMedCrossRef

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

Titel: The effect of distraction on face and voice recognition
Auteurs: Sarah V. Stevenage
Greg J. Neil
Jess Barlow
Amy Dyson
Catherine Eaton-Brown
Beth Parsons
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0450-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2013

Overtraining and the use of feature and geometric cues for reorientation

Processing numerosity, length and duration in a three-dimensional Stroop-like task: towards a gradient of processing automaticity?

Measuring the allocation of attention in the Stroop task: evidence from eye movement patterns

Cognitive control of feature bindings: evidence from children with autistic spectrum disorder

The impact of task rules on distracter processing: automatic categorization of irrelevant stimuli

Setting sights higher: category-level attentional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness