Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments

Science and Justice

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 144-153

  Fraser MacKenzie, Peter A F ^a,b   Dror, Itiel E ^a,c   Wertheim, Kasey ^d  

^a Cognitive Consultants International ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d Complete Consultants Worldwide ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Contextual effects; Fingerprints; Forensic decision making; IAI certification; Suitability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE;

DECISION MAKING; DERMATOGLYPHICS; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 84876729936     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Jonides J. Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. Attention and Performance IX 1981, 187-203. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J.B. Long, A.D. Baddeley (Eds.).
2. Wolfe J.M., Cave K.R., Franzel S.L. Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1989, 15(3):419-433.
3. Folk C.L., Remington R.W., Johnston J.C. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1992, 18(4):1030-1044.
4. Desimone R., Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 1995, 18:193-222.
5. Egeth H.E., Yantis S. Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology 1997, 48:269-297.
6. Itti L., Koch C.A. Saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research 2000, 40(10-12):1489-1506.
7. Kastner S., Ungerleider L.G. Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2000, 23:315-341.
8. Corbetta M., Shulman G.L. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2002, 3(3):201-215.
9. Awh E., Belopolsky A.V., Theeuwes J. Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Science 2012, 16(8):437-443.
10. Julesz B. Texton gradients: the texton theory revisited. Biological Cybernetics 1986, 54(4-5):234-251.
11. Moraglia G. Display organization and the detection of horizontal line segments. Perception & Psychophysics 1989, 45(3):265-272.
12. Wolfe J.M., Butcher S.J., Lee C., Hyle M. Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29(2):483-502.
13. Maljkovic V., Nakayama K. Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition 1994, 22(6):657-672.
14. Dror I.E. How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 2009, 50(1):93-110.
15. Office of the Inspector General A Review of the FBI's Progress in Responding to the Recommendations in the Office of the Inspector General Report on the Fingerprint Misidentification in the Brandon Mayfield Case http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1105.pdf.
16. National Institute of Standards and Technology Expert working group on human factors in latent print analysis. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach 2012, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, (http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910745).
17. Langenburg G., Champod C. The GYRO system-a recommended approach to more transparent documentation. Journal of Forensic Identification 2011, 61(4):373-384.
18. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS One 2012, 7(3):e32800.
19. Dror I.E., Champod C., Langenburg G., Charlton D., Hunt H., Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Science International 2011, 208:10-17.
20. Schiffer B., Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of finger mark individualization. Forensic Science International 2007, 167:116-120.
21. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56(4):600-616.
22. Dror I.E., Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53(4):900-903.
23. Dror I.E., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2012, 57(2):343-352.
24. Dror I.E., Peron A., Hind S., Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2005, 19(6):799-809.
25. Bates D.M. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 2005, 5:27-30.
26. Krane D., Ford S., Gilder J., Inman K., Jamieson A., Koppl R., Kornfield I., Risinger D., Rudin N., Taylor M., Thompson W.C. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53(4):1006-1007.
27. Charlton D., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Dror I.E. Emotional experiences and motivating factors associated with fingerprint analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2010, 55(2):385-393.