CLPEX Chat Board

It would seem that the research undertaken into the psychological aspects of latent print comparison have struck a chord in Scotland.

See the article below and the comments generated. What is quite extraordinary is how 'group think' has turned an independent and scientific paper into a pro Mckie onslaught sponsored by the so called McKie supporters. For the record Mr Zeelenburg was a reviewer of the paper and offered insight. He was not, repeat not a co author nor did he have any part in the research and study.

Also see for interest:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/Times%20 ... y%2006.pdf

Fresh doubts over fingerprint evidence
MICHAEL HOWIE

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1107002006

I would invite comment on the research if anyone feels they have a scientific point to make?

cheers


Dave

By the way, here is a sample of research undertaken by Dr Dror. Only one paper has been reviewed by anybody associated with the McKie case. Hardly biased research for the McKies!!

Dror, I.E. (2006). Don’t forget us humans! The Times, 31 July 2006.

Dror, I.E. (in press). The Tunnel Vision of “Biometric Solutions”. Biometric Technology Today.

Dror, I.E. (in press). Perceptual, cognitive, and psychological elements involved in expert identification. In A. McRoberts (Ed.) Friction Ridge Sourcebook. [abstract]

Dror, I.E. & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56 (4), 600-616. [abstract]

Dror, I.E. (2006). Cognitive science serving security: Assuring useable and efficient biometric and technological solutions. Aviation Security International, 12 (3), 21-28. [abstract]

Dror, I.E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications Forensic Science International, 156 (1), 74-78. [abstract]

Dror, I.E. (in press). A holistic-cognitive approach for success in technology. Biometric Technology Today.

Dror, I.E. & Stevenage, S. (2000). Facial Information Processing. Special Issue edited by Itiel Dror and Sarah Stevenage. John Benjamins Publishing

Dror, I.E. (2005). Technology and human expertise: Some do’s and don’ts. Biometric Technology Today, 13 (9), 7-9. [abstract]

Dror, I.E., Peron, A., Hind, S., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799-809. [abstract]

Dror, I.E. (2005). Psychological and cognitive elements involved in biometric identification. Biometrics 2005, London.

Dror, I.E. & Shaikh, A. (2005). Training for expertise in face recognition and working with face recognition technology (TNA). United Kingdom Passport Services (UKPS) Technical Report.

Dror, I. E., Charlton, D. (2005). The vulnerability of fingerprint science and potential pitfalls in the identification process. How can they be addressed and overcome? Fingerprint Society Meeting. Brighton.

Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron, A.E. (2004). Evaluating ‘scientific’ evidence for the court: What contributing factors are really involved in fingerprint identification. International Centre for Advanced Research in Identification Science (ICARIS). Sheffield.

Dror, I.E. & Shaikh, A. (2005). Face recognition technology: Cognitive considerations in system design. United Kingdom Passport Services (UKPS) Technical Report.

Dascal, M. & Dror, I. E. (2005). The impact of cognitive technologies: Towards a pragmatic approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13 (3), 451-457. [abstract]

Dror, I.E. & Stevenage, S. (Editors) Facial Information Processing: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (2000). John Benjamins Publishing.

Dror, I. E., Peron, A.E., & Charlton, D. (2004). Psychological factors involved in fingerprint identification. Autumn Conference of the Forensic Science Society.

Dror, I. E. & Florer, F. L. (1995). A neural network that recognizes faces. In F. A. Sadjadi (Ed.), Automatic Object Recognition V, (pp. 123-129). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.

Smith, W. & Dror, I. E. (1999). Configural Information Contributes More to Object Representation than Featural Information. British Psychological Cognitive Section XVI Annual Conference.

Ashworth, R. S., Dror, I. E., Snooks, S. F., Robbins, R.D., & Schreiner, C.S. (1997). Canonical and non-canonical presentations during training determine the specificity of the object representations. Psychonomics Abstracts, 2, 627.

Dror, I. E., Busemeyer, J.R., & Basola, B. (1999). Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models. Memory and Cognition, 27 (4), 713-725. [abstract]

Charlton, D., Peron, A.E., & Dror, I. E., (2004). The interplay of perceptual and cognitive elements in fingerprint identification: When higher-level cognition can facilitated or hinder fingerprint matching. International Biometric Society, British Region Annual Meeting. Royal Statistical Society, London.

Dror, I. E., Langer, E.J., Houlette, M., & Ashworth, R.S.( 2001). Training and tasks demands that restrict and enhance performance. Psychonomic Abstracts, 6, 85.

Schmitz-Williams, I., Smith, W., & Dror, I.E. (2004). The interplay of bottom-up and top-down elements in imagery: The role of visual feature & semantics. XXI BPS Annual Cognitive Conference.

Dror, I.E. (2005). Perception is far from perfection: The role of the brain and mind in constructing realities. Brain and Behavioural Sciences 28 (6), 763. [abstract]

Dror, I. E., Rafaely, V., & Busemyer, J. R. (1999). The dynamics of decision making as a function of recent outcomes and possible consequences. Sixth European Congress of Psychology, 86.
Dror, I. E., Ashworth, R. S., Schreiner, C.S., Robbins, R.D., & Snooks, S. F. (1997). The primacy effect on identification: Initial presentations during training establish long lasting representations. Psychonomics Abstracts, 2, 628. Philadelphia, PA.

Baden, D., Dror, I. E., and Warwick-Evans, L.A. (2000). The dynamics within and between decisions. Psychonomic Abstracts, 4, 81.

Peron, A.E., Dror, I. E., Hind, S.L, & Charlton, D. (2004). Decision making processes involved in fingerprint identification: The influence of emotional context on finding a match. 14th International Forensic Science Symposium.

Dror, I. E., Florer, F.L., Rios, D., & Zagaeski, M. (1996). Using artificial bat sonar neural networks for complex pattern recognition: Recognizing faces and the speed of a moving target. Biological Cybernetics, 74 (4), 331-338.

Peron, A.E. & Dror, I.E. (2004). The number of alternative choices affects decision making in a counter intuitive probability task. XXI BPS Annual Cognitive Conference.
Schreiner, C. S., Smith, K. M., & Dror, I. E. (1997). Visual-spatial processing of objects presented from canonical and non-canonical viewpoints. Cognitive Neuroscience Society Abstracts.

Dror, I. E., Ashworth, A.R.S., and Stevenage, S.V. (1999). Mediating aircraft identification by manipulating distinctiveness, stimulus similarity, and learning presentations. Psychonomic Abstracts, 4, 23-24.

Hi Dave,

I responded when you initially posted/published your findings on the first set of research. I was sceptical that you could draw strong inferences from a limited population of candidates. The suggestion I would make is based on how to make this current research better accepted internationally. Two factors that arise are the we dont know either the types of latents used or the performance level of the experts. To keep the research in an international perspective there should be some common ground. The Advanced Ridgeology Comparison Techniques course conducted by Pat Wertheim has been taught internationally and has two important elements. The first is the ability to grade the latents into levels of difficulty. The second is the separation of experts who have the ability to undertake difficult latents. I would propose that your next round of research uses this course concept/material on a good size population of local experts. Distill them down to a reasonable size group who can perform difficult latents and then conduct your covert testing of this group. There is no secret that in any science human error by practitioners will occur. Your research is based on the premise of information biase causing a change in the approach/objectivity of the expert to perform examinations. If you chose a proven group of experts using a known sample of latents as the testing regime and then applied your research parameters I believe you would be closer to the mark. Cheers from oz. Les

As I understand Dror's research, one can't change someone's evaluation of a clear non-match or clear match with biasing information, but one can affect some (perhaps even many) experts' evaluation of a difficult match. I think that's also true of the Berns' research. Berns, et als, Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation, 58 Bio. Pysch. 245 (2005) (wrong answers to questions about geometric forms by peers caused many subjects to conform their answers to wrong results and caused changes in brain activity suggesting subjects misperceived the image due to the social pressure.). You might also want to look at Kassin & Kiechel, The Social Psychology of False Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and Confabulation, 7:3 Psychol. Sci. 125 (1996) (experimenters falsely told subjects they had taken an action which caused a computer failure during a data entry test, many subjects accepted the falsehood and confabulated details supporting it).

One effect of experience might be that a novice examiner might class a latent as a difficult match, where an experienced examiner might see the same latent as an easy decision. One of the niftier bits of Dror's work was to use latents the examiners themselves had earlier taken a position on. Sadly, tho, that trick is hard to replicate -- it only works if the examiner is unaware of the trick being played.

Hello again David,
having read the article "When emotions get the better of us:The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints" I'm sorry but the same mistakes are being made once more. There should not be a co-relation between research conducted on incompetent and inexperienced Uni students and apply their results to the fingerprint community. The research may be useful in how to train Uni students in fingerprint matching but that is where Id draw the line. Emotional responses are based on several variables, experience is one and gender is another. If Dror is so good at psychology I would have thought this research would address at least those issues as clarification/sense checking of the results. As an analogy Doctors and nurses (male and female) become less emotional to the issues of blood and needles, but try that on a group of Uni students and the emotional results are predicitable. That doesnt mean Uni students will produce related experimental results applicable to the competency of doctors and nurses. Its not getting any better. Cheers

Les log on and check your private messages