Scribd
Upload
126 views2 pages

Cambridge Face Recognition Tests

Test discriminación facial

Uploaded by

Ángeles Guerrero Rodríguez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views2 pages

Cambridge Face Recognition Tests

Test discriminación facial

Uploaded by

Ángeles Guerrero Rodríguez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Outcome Measure Cambridge Face Recognition Tasks: Face Memory test (CFMT), Face

Perception Test (CFPT)


Sensitivity to Not known
Change
Population Adult
How to obtain https://www.testable.org/library
Email author [email protected] for Australian and other versions.
Domain Social Cognition
Type of Measure Objective test
Time to Approximately 8-12 minutes
administer
Description The CFMT (Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006): Examinees are consecutively exposed
to three images of the same face (different angles) for 3 seconds each. Part 1:
Following this, they must select the same image from amongst three different
identities in 3 trials. This is repeated for 6 identities (6 faces x 3 presentations)
(score max = 18). Part 2: They are shown a review image (frontal) of the six
identities for 20 seconds then required to pick one of the identities out in 30
forced choice trials (6 faces x 5 presentations) where the target and distractors
vary with respect to visual angle or lighting. (max score = 30) Part 3: After
exposure to the review image again for 20 seconds, examinees are given 24 test
trials (6 identities x 4 presentations) where the target identity must be selected
from a series of images with heavy visual noise (max score = 24). Administration
time approximately 10-15 minutes.
The CFPT (Duchaine, Germine, & Nakayama, 2007): In the CFPT, examinees are
shown a target face (three quarter view) and asked to sort 6 images below in
similarity to the target (in one minute). The images below are morphs between
other identities and the original face (from 28-88% blend). There are 8 trials with
different morphed images beneath. These are shown upright once and inverted
once. The score is the total number of items wrongly ranked and by the degree of
deviation from the correct sequence.
Properties Internal consistency: Coefficient alpha: CFMT: .89-.92 (Albonico, Malaspina, & Daini,
2017; Bowles et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2017; Wilmer et al., 2010). CFPT: .74 for upright
faces, .50 for inverted faces (Bowles et al., 2009).
Test-retest reliability- CFMT: .70 (6 months) (Wilmer et al., 2010)
Construct validity: CFMT: Correlates with the CFPT (upright) r = -.61 (Bowles et al., 2009),
r =.67 (Russell, Duchaine, & Nakayama, 2009) and long-term face memory (r = .72 (Russell
et al., 2009), r = .51 (Wilmer et al., 2010). CFMT performance also correlates with self-
reported problems with face recognition (r = .14) (Palermo et al., 2017) whereas the BFRT
does not. In terms of divergent validity, there is no significant correlation between CFMT
scores and an abstract art memory test (Wilmer et al., 2010) of a verbal memory test
(Bowles et al., 2009; Wilmer et al., 2010). In well-educated samples, education did not
influence scores (Bowles et al., 2009) although women tend to out-perform men (approx.
3-point advantage (Albonico et al., 2017). Further there is evidence that ethnicity
similarity between target items and examinees influences scores (Bowles et al., 2009) The
CFPT has been found to correlate with verbal memory (Bowles et al., 2009) suggesting
intelligence may play a role in scores.
Discriminative validity: CFMT: 25/32 people with suspected prosopagnosia performed
below the cut-off on the CFMT vs only 6/32 on the BFRT (Albonico et al., 2017). CFPT:
People with prosopagnosia were only mildly impaired on the CFPT relative to the CFMT
(Bowles et al., 2009).
Normative data: There is normative data for the CFMT (N= 3000+ collected via the
internet) (Wilmer et al., 2010), for young adults from USA (N=50), Israel (N = 49),
Germany (N= 153), Italy (N =217), Australia (N=117, 241) (Albonico et al., 2017) (Bowles
et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2017) and older adults from 35 to 79 (Bowles et al., 2009).
Similar data for young to older adults (65-88 years old) is available for the CFPT (N = 125)
(Bowles et al., 2009).

Advantages • CFMT is differentially sensitive to prosopagnosia

Disadvantages • Inverted part of CFPT is not reliable.

References
Albonico, A., Malaspina, M., & Daini, R. (2017). Italian normative data and validation of two
neuropsychological tests of face recognition: Benton Facial Recognition Test and Cambridge
Face Memory Test. Neurol Sci, 38(9), 1637-1643. doi:10.1007/s10072-017-3030-6
Bowles, D. C., McKone, E., Dawel, A., Duchaine, B., Palermo, R., Schmalzl, L., . . . Yovel, G. (2009).
Diagnosing prosopagnosia: Effects of ageing, sex, and participant–stimulus ethnic match on
the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Cambridge Face Perception Test. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 26(5), 423-455. doi:10.1080/02643290903343149
Duchaine, B., Germine, L., & Nakayama, K. (2007). Family resemblance: ten family members with
prosopagnosia and within-class object agnosia. Cogn Neuropsychol, 24(4), 419-430.
doi:10.1080/02643290701380491
Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: results for neurologically
intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and
prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576-585.
doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001
Palermo, R., Rossion, B., Rhodes, G., Laguesse, R., Tez, T., Hall, B., . . . McKone, E. (2017). Do people
have insight into their face recognition abilities? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 70(2), 218-233.

Russell, R., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Super-recognizers: people with extraordinary face
recognition ability. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16(2), 252-257. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.252
Wilmer, J. B., Germine, L., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., Williams, M., Loken, E., . . . Duchaine, B.
(2010). Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A, 107(11), 5238-5241. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913053107

You might also like