Literature DB >> 8552458

Factors influencing the accuracy of age estimates of unfamiliar faces.

P A George1, G J Hole.   

Abstract

Factors affecting the accuracy with which adults could assess the age of unfamiliar male faces aged between 5 and 70 years were examined. In the first experiment twenty-five 'young' adult subjects, aged 16-25, and twenty-five 'old' adults, aged 51-60, were used. Each subject saw five versions of three different faces: these consisted of an original version of each face and four manipulated versions of it. The manipulations consisted of mirror reversal, pseudo-cardioidal strain, thresholding, and elimination of all but the internal features of the face. The second experiment was similar except that a between-subjects design was used: each subject saw three faces for each age category of target face, but was exposed to only a single type of manipulation (plus a set of 'original' faces which were identical for all groups, so that the comparability of the different groups in age estimation could be checked). Results from both experiments were similar. Age estimates for unmanipulated 'original' faces were highly accurate, although subjects were most accurate with target faces that were within their own age range. Results for the manipulated faces implied that the importance of cardioidal strain as a necessary and sufficient cue to age may have been overestimated in previous reports: subjects' age estimates were accurate when cardioidal strain was absent from the stimulus, and poor when cardioidal strain was the only cue available.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8552458     DOI: 10.1068/p241059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  13 in total

1.  Evidence for an own-age bias in age estimation from voices in older persons.

Authors:  Evelyne Moyse; Aline Beaufort; Serge Brédart
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2014-02-12

2.  No country for old men: street use and social diet in urban Newcastle.

Authors:  Daniel Nettle; Rebecca Coyne; Agathe Colléony
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2012-12

3.  Allocentric kin recognition is not affected by facial inversion.

Authors:  Maria F Dal Martello; Lisa M DeBruine; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  How old is that child? Validating the accuracy of age assignments in observational surveys of vehicle restraint use.

Authors:  S Moeller; L Berger; J G Salvador; D Helitzer
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.399

5.  Culture shapes efficiency of facial age judgments.

Authors:  Gizelle Anzures; Liezhong Ge; Zhe Wang; Shoji Itakura; Kang Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Differences between perceived age and chronological age in women: A multi-ethnic and multi-centre study.

Authors:  Rainer Voegeli; Rotraut Schoop; Elodie Prestat-Marquis; Anthony V Rawlings; Todd K Shackelford; Bernhard Fink
Journal:  Int J Cosmet Sci       Date:  2021-08-08       Impact factor: 2.416

Review 7.  The independence of expression and identity in face-processing: evidence from neuropsychological case studies.

Authors:  Sarah Bate; Rachel Bennetts
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-09

8.  Recognizing age-separated face images: humans and machines.

Authors:  Daksha Yadav; Richa Singh; Mayank Vatsa; Afzel Noore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  With age comes representational wisdom in social signals.

Authors:  Nicola van Rijsbergen; Katarzyna Jaworska; Guillaume A Rousselet; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Aspects of facial contrast decrease with age and are cues for age perception.

Authors:  Aurélie Porcheron; Emmanuelle Mauger; Richard Russell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.