签名的复杂性如何影响专家和非专业人员区分真实签名、伪装签名和模拟签名的能力。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Nicholas Scurich PhD, Miriam Angel MS, Hal Stern PhD, William C. Thompson JD, PhD
{"title":"签名的复杂性如何影响专家和非专业人员区分真实签名、伪装签名和模拟签名的能力。","authors":"Nicholas Scurich PhD,&nbsp;Miriam Angel MS,&nbsp;Hal Stern PhD,&nbsp;William C. Thompson JD, PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examined how variations in signature complexity affected the ability of forensic document examiners (FDEs) and laypeople to determine whether signatures are authentic or simulated (forged), as well as whether they are disguised. Forty-five FDEs from nine countries evaluated nine different signature comparisons in this online study. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses revealed that FDEs performed in excess of chance levels, but performance varied as a function of signature complexity: Sensitivity (the true-positive rate) did not differ much between complexity levels (i.e., 65% vs. 79% vs. 79% for low vs medium vs high complexity), but specificity (the true-negative rate) was the highest (95%) for the medium complexity signatures and lowest (73%) for low complexity signatures. The specificity of high-complexity signatures (83%) was between these values. The sensitivity for disguised comparisons was only 11% and did not vary across complexity levels. One hundred-one novices also completed the study. A comparison of the area under the ROC curve (AUCs) revealed that FDEs outperformed novices in medium and high-complexity signatures but not low-complexity signatures. Novices also struggled to detect disguised signatures. While these findings elucidate the role of signature complexity in lay and expert evaluations, the error rates observed here may differ from those in forensic practice due to differences in the experimental stimuli and circumstances under which they were evaluated. This investigation of the role of signature complexity in the evaluation process was not intended to estimate error rates in forensic practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"69 6","pages":"2159-2170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.15605","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How signature complexity affects expert and lay ability to distinguish genuine, disguised and simulated signatures\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Scurich PhD,&nbsp;Miriam Angel MS,&nbsp;Hal Stern PhD,&nbsp;William C. Thompson JD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.15605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study examined how variations in signature complexity affected the ability of forensic document examiners (FDEs) and laypeople to determine whether signatures are authentic or simulated (forged), as well as whether they are disguised. Forty-five FDEs from nine countries evaluated nine different signature comparisons in this online study. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses revealed that FDEs performed in excess of chance levels, but performance varied as a function of signature complexity: Sensitivity (the true-positive rate) did not differ much between complexity levels (i.e., 65% vs. 79% vs. 79% for low vs medium vs high complexity), but specificity (the true-negative rate) was the highest (95%) for the medium complexity signatures and lowest (73%) for low complexity signatures. The specificity of high-complexity signatures (83%) was between these values. The sensitivity for disguised comparisons was only 11% and did not vary across complexity levels. One hundred-one novices also completed the study. A comparison of the area under the ROC curve (AUCs) revealed that FDEs outperformed novices in medium and high-complexity signatures but not low-complexity signatures. Novices also struggled to detect disguised signatures. While these findings elucidate the role of signature complexity in lay and expert evaluations, the error rates observed here may differ from those in forensic practice due to differences in the experimental stimuli and circumstances under which they were evaluated. This investigation of the role of signature complexity in the evaluation process was not intended to estimate error rates in forensic practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"69 6\",\"pages\":\"2159-2170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.15605\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15605\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15605","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了签名复杂程度的变化如何影响法医文件检验员(FDEs)和普通人判断签名是真实签名还是模拟签名(伪造签名)以及是否伪装签名的能力。在这项在线研究中,来自 9 个国家的 45 位法医文件检验员对 9 种不同的签名对比进行了评估。接收器工作特征(ROC)分析表明,FDE 的性能超过了偶然水平,但性能随签名复杂程度的变化而变化:不同复杂程度的灵敏度(真实阳性率)差别不大(即低复杂程度与中复杂程度与高复杂程度的灵敏度分别为 65% 与 79% 与 79%),但中复杂程度签名的特异性(真实阴性率)最高(95%),低复杂程度签名的特异性最低(73%)。高复杂度特征的特异性(83%)介于这两个数值之间。伪装比对的灵敏度仅为 11%,且在不同复杂度级别之间没有差异。100 名新手也完成了这项研究。对 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)的比较显示,在中度和高度复杂性签名中,FDE 的表现优于新手,但在低度复杂性签名中则不然。新手也很难检测到伪装签名。虽然这些发现阐明了签名复杂性在非专业人员和专家评估中的作用,但由于实验刺激和评估环境的不同,这里观察到的错误率可能与法医实践中的错误率不同。对签名复杂性在评估过程中的作用的调查并不是为了估计法医实践中的错误率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How signature complexity affects expert and lay ability to distinguish genuine, disguised and simulated signatures

How signature complexity affects expert and lay ability to distinguish genuine, disguised and simulated signatures

This study examined how variations in signature complexity affected the ability of forensic document examiners (FDEs) and laypeople to determine whether signatures are authentic or simulated (forged), as well as whether they are disguised. Forty-five FDEs from nine countries evaluated nine different signature comparisons in this online study. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses revealed that FDEs performed in excess of chance levels, but performance varied as a function of signature complexity: Sensitivity (the true-positive rate) did not differ much between complexity levels (i.e., 65% vs. 79% vs. 79% for low vs medium vs high complexity), but specificity (the true-negative rate) was the highest (95%) for the medium complexity signatures and lowest (73%) for low complexity signatures. The specificity of high-complexity signatures (83%) was between these values. The sensitivity for disguised comparisons was only 11% and did not vary across complexity levels. One hundred-one novices also completed the study. A comparison of the area under the ROC curve (AUCs) revealed that FDEs outperformed novices in medium and high-complexity signatures but not low-complexity signatures. Novices also struggled to detect disguised signatures. While these findings elucidate the role of signature complexity in lay and expert evaluations, the error rates observed here may differ from those in forensic practice due to differences in the experimental stimuli and circumstances under which they were evaluated. This investigation of the role of signature complexity in the evaluation process was not intended to estimate error rates in forensic practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of forensic sciences
Journal of forensic sciences 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信