Exploring feature variability in digitally captured signatures-Part II: Discrimination between genuine and simulated signatures and the effects of collection sessions and writing position.

IF 1.8
Jonathan Heckeroth, Axel Kerkhoff, Paul Schmidt, Raymond Marquis, Erich Kupferschmid, Céline Weyermann
{"title":"Exploring feature variability in digitally captured signatures-Part II: Discrimination between genuine and simulated signatures and the effects of collection sessions and writing position.","authors":"Jonathan Heckeroth, Axel Kerkhoff, Paul Schmidt, Raymond Marquis, Erich Kupferschmid, Céline Weyermann","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the discrimination between genuine and simulated digitally captured signatures (DCSs) to support their forensic examination. The dataset included genuine questioned signatures from 65 writers, collected across multiple sessions and in three writing positions, together with reference signatures collected in the standard position. In addition, eight simulations were produced by different individuals for each writer and treated as simulated questioned signatures, yielding a total of 520 simulations. Features of genuine and simulated questioned signatures were compared relative to writer-specific reference material. All examined features except the size-related characteristics and the number of pen lifts differed significantly between genuine and simulated signatures. Dynamic features, particularly total duration, achieved strong discrimination with an overall error rate as low as 7%. Combining features reduced the error rate marginally and not significantly (to 6%). Simulations were less often misclassified when reference signatures exhibited lower standardized within-writer variability in duration. This suggests that correspondence between questioned and reference signatures may carry greater evidential value under such conditions. A similar, but non-significant, trend was observed with increasing signature complexity. Exploratory analyses suggested benefits of writer-specific interpretation of signature features. While no clear temporal effect on classification error rates was observed across the collection period, writing position influenced performance, highlighting the importance of considering non-standard writing conditions in forensic practice. Overall, despite substantial variability in genuine signatures, DCS features enabled reliable discrimination between genuine and simulated signatures, with continuous dynamic features providing key discriminatory information and extending the possibilities of forensic examination beyond pen-and-paper signatures.</p>","PeriodicalId":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated the discrimination between genuine and simulated digitally captured signatures (DCSs) to support their forensic examination. The dataset included genuine questioned signatures from 65 writers, collected across multiple sessions and in three writing positions, together with reference signatures collected in the standard position. In addition, eight simulations were produced by different individuals for each writer and treated as simulated questioned signatures, yielding a total of 520 simulations. Features of genuine and simulated questioned signatures were compared relative to writer-specific reference material. All examined features except the size-related characteristics and the number of pen lifts differed significantly between genuine and simulated signatures. Dynamic features, particularly total duration, achieved strong discrimination with an overall error rate as low as 7%. Combining features reduced the error rate marginally and not significantly (to 6%). Simulations were less often misclassified when reference signatures exhibited lower standardized within-writer variability in duration. This suggests that correspondence between questioned and reference signatures may carry greater evidential value under such conditions. A similar, but non-significant, trend was observed with increasing signature complexity. Exploratory analyses suggested benefits of writer-specific interpretation of signature features. While no clear temporal effect on classification error rates was observed across the collection period, writing position influenced performance, highlighting the importance of considering non-standard writing conditions in forensic practice. Overall, despite substantial variability in genuine signatures, DCS features enabled reliable discrimination between genuine and simulated signatures, with continuous dynamic features providing key discriminatory information and extending the possibilities of forensic examination beyond pen-and-paper signatures.

探索数字捕获签名的特征变异性-第二部分:真实签名和模拟签名之间的区别以及收集过程和书写位置的影响。
本研究调查了真实和模拟数字捕获签名(dcs)之间的区别,以支持其法医检查。该数据集包括来自65位作者的真实问题签名,这些签名是在多个会议和三个写作位置收集的,以及在标准位置收集的参考签名。此外,由不同的人为每个作者制作了8个模拟,并将其视为模拟的问题签名,总共产生了520个模拟。真实和模拟的被质疑签名的特征相对于作者特定的参考材料进行了比较。除了尺寸相关特征和笔举次数外,所有被检查的特征在真实签名和模拟签名之间都有显著差异。动态特征,特别是总持续时间,实现了较强的识别,总体错误率低至7%。结合功能可以略微降低错误率,但并不显著(降至6%)。当参考签名在持续时间内表现出较低的标准化写入变量时,模拟的错误分类就会减少。这表明,在这种情况下,被询问签名和参考签名之间的对应可能具有更大的证据价值。随着签名复杂性的增加,观察到类似但不显著的趋势。探索性分析表明,对签名特征进行特定于写信人的解释是有益的。虽然在整个收集期间没有观察到对分类错误率的明显时间影响,但书写位置影响了性能,突出了在法医实践中考虑非标准书写条件的重要性。总体而言,尽管真实签名存在很大差异,但DCS功能能够可靠地区分真实签名和模拟签名,连续的动态特征提供了关键的区分信息,并将法医检查的可能性扩展到纸笔签名之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书