Understanding ACE-V Latent Fingerprint Examination Process via Eye-Gaze Analysis

The latent fingerprint examiners often mark minutiae and perform a comparison of latent fingerprints with exemplar fingerprints of known identity. The interpretation of details in the fingerprints is often based on the proficiency of examiners. Different examiners discern fingerprint regions and details differently due to an unconscious choice of certain features driven by their experiences. In this study, we aim to draw inferences from the perceptual behavior by collecting eye gaze of examiners while they mark minutiae and perform comparison. The study shows the patterns observed across different forensic examiners and infers specific heuristics used by examiners to discern features. These practices could be inculcated back into an AFIS system to improve automated comparison and help train novice examiners. To draw inferences, novice and expert examiners perform latent to exemplar fingerprint comparison by following the ACE-V mechanism. During the comparison, examiners provide a value determination, quality score, and minutiae markup with respective confidences. 29 distinct examiners perform a total of 158 trials, where, the eye gaze is recorded simultaneously. Using the eye gaze fixation, we empirically find Regions of Interest (ROI) of examiners on the prints and utilize it towards developing an understanding of the search strategy.

[1]  Michael Snodgrass,et al.  Unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold exists , 2004 .

[2]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions. , 2013, Forensic science international.

[3]  Richa Singh,et al.  Learning Representations for Unconstrained Fingerprint Recognition , 2018 .

[4]  Christophe Champod,et al.  The GYRO System: a Recommended Approach to More Transparent Documentation , 2011 .

[5]  JoAnn Buscaglia,et al.  Data on the interexaminer variation of minutia markup on latent fingerprints , 2016, Data in brief.

[6]  Chen Yu,et al.  Temporal Sequences Quantify the Contributions of Individual Fixations in Complex Perceptual Matching Tasks , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Changes in latent fingerprint examiners' markup between analysis and comparison. , 2015, Forensic science international.

[8]  Philip M. Merikle,et al.  Perception below the Objective Threshold? , 1993, Consciousness and Cognition.

[9]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  The Earth Mover's Distance as a Metric for Image Retrieval , 2000, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[10]  Sarah V Stevenage,et al.  Fact or friction: Examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis. , 2016, Forensic science international.

[11]  I. Dror,et al.  Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[12]  T. Busey,et al.  The impact of fatigue on latent print examinations as revealed by behavioral and eye gaze testing. , 2015, Forensic science international.

[13]  REVISED DRAFT FOR COMMENT REVISED DRAFT FOR COMMENT STANDARDS FOR EXAMINING FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS AND RESULTING CONCLUSIONS , 2011 .

[14]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Resolving latent conflict: What happens when latent print examiners enter the cage? , 2018, Forensic science international.

[15]  Macgregor D Vogelsang,et al.  Holistic processing of fingerprints by expert forensic examiners , 2017, Cognitive Research.

[16]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations , 2014, PloS one.

[17]  Brandon L. Garrett,et al.  Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community , 2007 .

[18]  Richa Singh,et al.  Latent Fingerprint Matching: A Survey , 2014, IEEE Access.

[19]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners , 2012, PloS one.

[20]  C. Champod,et al.  The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[21]  Michael C. Mozer,et al.  Using Highlighting to Train Attentional Expertise , 2016, PloS one.

[22]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Shahrzad Shapoori,et al.  GA-Neural Approach for Latent Finger Print Matching , 2011, 2011 Second International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation.

[24]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization , 2019, Cognitive research: principles and implications.

[25]  Glenn Langenburg,et al.  “Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[26]  Chen Yu,et al.  Consistency and Variability Among Latent Print Examiners as Revealed by Eye Tracking Methodologies , 2011 .

[27]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Interexaminer variation of minutia markup on latent fingerprints. , 2016, Forensic science international.

[28]  Mirto Musci,et al.  Gaze-based biometrics: An introduction to forensic applications , 2016, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[29]  R Austin Hicklin,et al.  Factors associated with latent fingerprint exclusion determinations. , 2017, Forensic science international.

[30]  Chen Yu,et al.  Discovering Correspondences between Fingerprints Based on the Temporal Dynamics of Eye Movements from Experts , 2010, ICWF.