1

Efficiency of encoding multiple image arrays in a 2AFC task

Word count: 900

Student: Shashnavee Deepa d/o Sangkuni

Student Number: 7024769

Subject: PSYC327

Tutor: Dr Li Mei Chew

Class: Monday, 3.30 – 6.30pm

1
 2

Pictures are frequently used to establish a person's identity or to confirm that they are who

they say they are. The function of background pictures in the process of familiarity has been the

subject of face recognition literature. In this context, ambient photos are spontaneously occurring

photographs of a person's face that demonstrate the unique ways a look might differ. This

research aims to determine whether face-matching with two alternative forced choices and many

images has any advantages (2AFC).

(Chapman et al., 2018) Familiar faces are remembered so well because of how many different

situations and image modifications they have been exposed to, such as array size or amount of

image variability. Unfamiliar faces do not benefit from this depth of experience and are

represented using information unique to the individual image, are harder to recognize, and take

longer to identify. Hunnisett & Favelle (2021) states that the confusion of familiar and unfamiliar

faces is probably a myth about the precision of unfamiliar face detection first surface.

Improvements were only shown in match trials, and benefits from exposure to several

photographs of the same individual required simultaneous viewing of the images.

The only sequential viewing that improved overall accuracy across trial types was watching a

multiple-image array followed by a target picture with high variability. When identifying

unfamiliar faces, even minor changes in a person's appearance can be problematic Burton et al.,

(2005), but observers can tolerate significant image variations when recognizing familiar faces.

Hunnisett and Favelle (2021) conducted a study to see if the benefit of within-person

variation in face-matching tasks holds when the images are taken from various angles. Research

showed that participants might have used one of two possible approaches to finish this

simultaneous matching task. Participants were aware that the photo array always represents a

single identity. They may combine the data from each image in the array with the information

2
 3

from the target image to determine who they are, gathering abstracted data to create an averaged

identity representation. Similarly, White et al., (2014) researched whether several images enhance

face-matching performance. Participants were required to complete a face-matching assignment

simultaneously, with different array sizes. The experiment demonstrated that several image arrays

enhanced the performance of unfamiliar simultaneous face matching.

Despite these two articles agreeing on the concept of abstraction from multiple image array

size utilizing simultaneous tasks, Ritchie et al., (2021) researched the advantages of multiple-

image arrays in matching tasks being tested. The findings imply that Multiple images improved

face matching performance in a sequential task and did not find improvement when the array and

the target were presented simultaneously. This proves that the multiple-image benefit is only

present when the task involves a significant memory component for a sequential task, not when

the job is solely perceptual during a simultaneous. Even the simultaneous matching task involves

short-term visual memory when participants look from the array of images to the target image.

When a task has a significant memory component that is sequential, the multiple-image

benefit can be seen, but not when a task is simultaneous perceptual. Ritchie et al., (2021)

researched that multiple-image arrays only make face matching easier when targets come before

arrays. Sequential matching tasks need memory and the abstraction of a stable representation of

the face from the array for later comparison with a target. Results show that multiple-image arrays

are only advantageous when this abstraction is necessary and not when both the array and the

target photos are immediately available. This explains that multiple-image arrays only improve

performance when shown before the target image, which requires memory, and not when shown

after the target image.

The two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) method uses the observer's pattern of choices and

response times to two copies of the sensory input to gauge how sensitive the person is to that

particular sensory input or stimulus (Ritchie et al., 2021). In contrast, when two stimuli are

3
 4

presented for the 2AFC task, and the goal is to determine which is more intense on a specific

scale, strong evidence for one stimulus is not always evidenced against the other. Therefore, both

stimulus differences and overall stimulus magnitude may impact 2AFC tasks with the total

strength of the two items.

Participant performance on five perceptual 2-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks, in

which two stimuli are presented, and a comparison judgment is to be made, (Ratcliff et al., 2018).

The magnitudes of the two stimuli and their difference can affect how the information represented

in these 2AFC tasks is chosen. Participants replied more quickly when the combined magnitude

of the increased array size and the amount of visual fluctuation of the two stimuli were larger.

These results support the idea that the overall image array size influences decision-making.

This research proposes that there is no effect of array size or picture variability amount in a

simultaneous same/different matching task and that LV and HV array types and one and three

image array sizes will have identical matching accuracy. Our study also predicted that there

would be a relationship between array size and picture variability in a simultaneous 2AFC

matching test, with the HV array type and three-image array size producing the highest matching

accuracy. The second hypothesis is that there is multiple image benefit in the 2AFC task with the

help of sequential memory abstraction. Based on this research, we hypothesised that multiple

image benefit does not affect simultaneous tasks.

4
5

References

Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J. B., White, D. (2005). Robust representations for

face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51(3), 256–284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.06.003

Chapman, A. F., Hawkins-Elder, H., & Susilo, T. (2018). How robust is familiar face

recognition? A repeat detection study of more than 1000 faces. Royal Society Open

Science, 5(5), 170634. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170634

5
6

Hunnisett, N., & Favelle, S. (2021). Within-person variability can improve the identification

of unfamiliar faces across changes in viewpoint. Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 74(11), 1873–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211009771

Ratcliff, R., Voskuilen, C., & Teodorescu, A. (2018). Modeling 2-alternative forced-choice

tasks: Accounting for both magnitude and difference effects. Cognitive Psychology,

103, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.02.002

Ritchie, K. L., Kramer, R. S., Mileva, M., Sandford, A., & Burton, A. M. (2021). Multiple-

image arrays in face matching tasks with and without memory. Cognition, 211,

104632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104632

White, D., Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Kemp, R. I. (2014). Redesigning photo-ID to

improve unfamiliar face matching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Applied, 20(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000009