These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22103723)

  • 1. Familiarity effects in the construction of facial-composite images using modern software systems.
    Frowd CD; Skelton FC; Butt N; Hassan A; Fields S; Hancock PJ
    Ergonomics; 2011 Dec; 54(12):1147-58. PubMed ID: 22103723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Recovering faces from memory: the distracting influence of external facial features.
    Frowd CD; Skelton F; Atherton C; Pitchford M; Hepton G; Holden L; McIntyre AH; Hancock PJ
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2012 Jun; 18(2):224-38. PubMed ID: 22545929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improving the quality of facial composites using a holistic cognitive interview.
    Frowd CD; Bruce V; Smith AJ; Hancock PJ
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Sep; 14(3):276-87. PubMed ID: 18808281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Whole-face procedures for recovering facial images from memory.
    Frowd CD; Skelton F; Hepton G; Holden L; Minahil S; Pitchford M; McIntyre A; Brown C; Hancock PJ
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):89-97. PubMed ID: 23601715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Configural and featural information in facial-composite images.
    Frowd CD; Jones S; Fodarella C; Skelton F; Fields S; Williams A; Marsh JE; Thorley R; Nelson L; Greenwood L; Date L; Kearley K; McIntyre AH; Hancock PJ
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):215-27. PubMed ID: 24796951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect.
    Charman SD; Gregory AH; Carlucci M
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):76-90. PubMed ID: 19309218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The impact of external facial features on the construction of facial composites.
    Brown C; Portch E; Skelton FC; Fodarella C; Kuivaniemi-Smith H; Herold K; Hancock PJB; Frowd CD
    Ergonomics; 2019 Apr; 62(4):575-592. PubMed ID: 30523739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 7-11-year-old children show an advantage for matching and recognizing the internal features of familiar faces: evidence against a developmental shift.
    Bonner L; Burton M
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Aug; 57(6):1019-29. PubMed ID: 15370514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evolving and combining facial composites: between-witness and within-witness morphs compared.
    Valentine T; Davis JP; Thorner K; Solomon C; Gibson S
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Mar; 16(1):72-86. PubMed ID: 20350045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An evaluation of U.S. systems for facial composite production.
    Frowd CD; McQuiston-Surrett D; Anandaciva S; Ireland CG; Hancock PJ
    Ergonomics; 2007 Dec; 50(12):1987-98. PubMed ID: 18033611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Holistic face processing can inhibit recognition of forensic facial composites.
    McIntyre AH; Hancock PJ; Frowd CD; Langton SR
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Apr; 40(2):128-35. PubMed ID: 26436334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites.
    Frowd C; Bruce V; McIntyre A; Hancock P
    Br J Psychol; 2007 Feb; 98(Pt 1):61-77. PubMed ID: 17319051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Deidentification of facial images using composites.
    Engelstad ME; McClellan M; Jacko JA; Melton GB
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Dec; 69(12):3026-31. PubMed ID: 21601340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: a review.
    Johnston RA; Edmonds AJ
    Memory; 2009 Jul; 17(5):577-96. PubMed ID: 19548173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images.
    Bruce V; Henderson Z; Newman C; Burton AM
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Sep; 7(3):207-18. PubMed ID: 11676099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Face processing and familiarity: evidence from eye-movement data.
    Stacey PC; Walker S; Underwood JD
    Br J Psychol; 2005 Nov; 96(Pt 4):407-22. PubMed ID: 16248933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Parallel approaches to composite production: interfaces that behave contrary to expectation.
    Frowd CD; Bruce V; Ness H; Bowie L; Paterson J; Thomson-Bogner C; McIntyre A; Hancock PJ
    Ergonomics; 2007 Apr; 50(4):562-85. PubMed ID: 17575715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems.
    Davies G; van der Willik P; Morrison LJ
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Feb; 85(1):119-24. PubMed ID: 10740962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Early electrophysiological correlates of adaptation to personally familiar and unfamiliar faces across viewpoint changes.
    Caharel S; Jacques C; d'Arripe O; Ramon M; Rossion B
    Brain Res; 2011 Apr; 1387():85-98. PubMed ID: 21362409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Brain potentials and integration of external and internal features into face representations.
    Olivares EI; Iglesias J
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2008 Apr; 68(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 18295921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.