The nature of expertise in fingerprint examiners

Latent print examinations involve a complex set of psychological and cognitive processes. This article summarizes existing work that has addressed how training and experience creates changes in latent print examiners. Experience appears to improve overall accuracy, increase visual working memory, and lead to configural processing of upright fingerprints. Experts also demonstrate a narrower visual filter and, as a group, tend to show greater consistency when viewing ink prints. These findings address recent criticisms of latent print evidence, but many open questions still exist. Cognitive scientists are well positioned to conduct studies that will improve the training and practices of latent print examiners, and suggestions for becoming involved in fingerprint research are provided.

[1]  H. Grüneberg.  An Analysis of the , 1938 .

[2]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[3]  P. Schyns,et al.  Categorization creates functional features , 1997 .

[4]  M. Eimer.  Effects of face inversion on the structural encoding and recognition of faces. Evidence from event-related brain potentials. , 2000, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[5]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Unitization during category learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  M. Tarr,et al.  The N170 occipito‐temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face‐specific processes in the human brain , 2000, Neuroreport.

[7]  Nalini K. Ratha,et al.  An Analysis of Minutiae Matching Strength , 2001, AVBPA.

[8]  J. van Leeuwen,et al.  Audio- and Video-Based Biometric Person Authentication , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  On the similarity of identical twin fingerprints , 2002, Pattern Recognit..

[10]  T. Busey,et al.  Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts , 2005, Vision Research.

[11]  Barbara Anne Dosher,et al.  Perceptual learning in clear displays optimizes perceptual expertise: learning the limiting process. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Siomon A. Cole,et al.  More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification , 2007 .

[13]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[14]  David A. Ross,et al.  Inducing features from visual noise. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[15]  Sargur N. Srihari,et al.  Generative models for fingerprint individuality using ridge models , 2008, 2008 19th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[16]  Jason M Tangen,et al.  On the Preliminary Psychophysics of Fingerprint Identification , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Law. Policy.  Executive Summary of the National Academies of Science Reports, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2009 .

[18]  Thomas A. Busey,et al.  Expertise and the width of the visual filter in fingerprint examiners , 2010 .

[19]  I. Dror,et al.  The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  J. Bohan,et al.  Review of: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2010 .

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