Cognitive Science 41 (7):1716-1759 (2017)

Authors
Chen Yu
NanJing University
Abstract
Forensic evidence often involves an evaluation of whether two impressions were made by the same source, such as whether a fingerprint from a crime scene has detail in agreement with an impression taken from a suspect. Human experts currently outperform computer-based comparison systems, but the strength of the evidence exemplified by the observed detail in agreement must be evaluated against the possibility that some other individual may have created the crime scene impression. Therefore, the strongest evidence comes from features in agreement that are also not shared with other impressions from other individuals. We characterize the nature of human expertise by applying two extant metrics to the images used in a fingerprint recognition task and use eye gaze data from experts to both tune and validate the models. The Attention via Information Maximization model quantifies the rarity of regions in the fingerprints to determine diagnosticity for purposes of excluding alternative sources. The CoVar model captures relationships between low-level features, mimicking properties of the early visual system. Both models produced classification and generalization performance in the 75%–80% range when classifying where experts tend to look. A validation study using regions identified by the AIM model as diagnostic demonstrates that human experts perform better when given regions of high diagnosticity. The computational nature of the metrics may help guard against wrongful convictions, as well as provide a quantitative measure of the strength of evidence in casework.
Keywords Categorization  Expertise  Eye tracking  Fingerprints  Forensics  Natural image statistics  Salience
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/cogs.12452
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,257
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Mathematical Theory of Communication.Claude E. Shannon - 1948 - Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423.
The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1980 - Acta Psychologica 44 (3):211-233.
Perception Below the Objective Threshold?Mark Van Selst & Philip M. Merikle - 1993 - Consciousness and Cognition 2 (3):194-203.
Computational Modelling of Visual Attention.L. Itti & C. Koch - 2001 - Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2 (3):194-203.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What is an Expert?Bruce D. Weinstein - 1993 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Intuition Fail: Philosophical Activity and the Limits of Expertise.Wesley Buckwalter - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):378-410.
Philosophical and Psychological Accounts of Expertise and Experts.Matt Stichter - 2015 - Humana.Mente - Journal of Philosophical Studies 28:105-128.
Parts, Features, and Expertise.James Tanaka - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):37-38.
The Possibility of Ethical Expertise.Bruce D. Weinstein - 1994 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1):1-187.
Face Perception and Perceptual Expertise in Adult and Developmental Populations.Lisa Scott - 2011 - In Andy Calder, Gillian Rhodes, Mark Johnson & Jim Haxby (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford University Press. pp. 195.
Three Dimensions of Expertise.Harry Collins - 2013 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12 (2):253-273.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-11-10

Total views
7 ( #1,064,494 of 2,499,868 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,749 of 2,499,868 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes