Literature DB >> 21518906

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions.

Bradford T Ulery1, R Austin Hicklin, Joann Buscaglia, Maria Antonia Roberts.   

Abstract

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21518906      PMCID: PMC3093498          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  5 in total

Review 1.  The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science.

Authors:  Michael J Saks; Jonathan J Koehler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae.

Authors:  Cédric Neumann; Christophe Champod; Roberto Puch-Solis; Nicole Egli; Alexandre Anthonioz; Andie Bromage-Griffiths
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.832

3.  A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement.

Authors:  Bruce Budowle; Maureen C Bottrell; Stephen G Bunch; Robert Fram; Diana Harrison; Stephen Meagher; Cary T Oien; Peter E Peterson; Danielle P Seiger; Michael B Smith; Melissa A Smrz; Greg L Soltis; Robert B Stacey
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 1.832

4.  What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics?

Authors:  D A Stoney
Journal:  J Forensic Sci Soc       Date:  1991 Apr-Jun

5.  Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons.

Authors:  Glenn Langenburg; Christophe Champod; Pat Wertheim
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.832

  5 in total
  28 in total

Review 1.  Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report.

Authors:  Christophe Champod
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  The style of a stranger: Identification expertise generalizes to coarser level categories.

Authors:  Rachel A Searston; Jason M Tangen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

3.  Statistical feature training improves fingerprint-matching accuracy in novices and professional fingerprint examiners.

Authors:  Bethany Growns; Alice Towler; James D Dunn; Jessica M Salerno; N J Schweitzer; Itiel E Dror
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-07-16

4.  Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison.

Authors:  David White; P Jonathon Phillips; Carina A Hahn; Matthew Hill; Alice J O'Toole
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Characterizing missed identifications and errors in latent fingerprint comparisons using eye-tracking data.

Authors:  Thomas A Busey; Nicholas Heise; R Austin Hicklin; Bradford T Ulery; JoAnn Buscaglia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners.

Authors:  Bradford T Ulery; R Austin Hicklin; JoAnn Buscaglia; Maria Antonia Roberts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Forensic comparison and matching of fingerprints: using quantitative image measures for estimating error rates through understanding and predicting difficulty.

Authors:  Philip J Kellman; Jennifer L Mnookin; Gennady Erlikhman; Patrick Garrigan; Tandra Ghose; Everett Mettler; David Charlton; Itiel E Dror
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching: experts can do a lot with a little.

Authors:  Matthew B Thompson; Jason M Tangen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  "Part Man, Part Machine, All Cop": Automation in Policing.

Authors:  Angelika Adensamer; Lukas Daniel Klausner
Journal:  Front Artif Intell       Date:  2021-06-23

10.  Understanding expertise and non-analytic cognition in fingerprint discriminations made by humans.

Authors:  Matthew B Thompson; Jason M Tangen; Rachel A Searston
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.