检查员对指纹细微特征稀有性的认识一致性

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Adele Quigley-McBride , Heidi Eldridge , Brett Gardner
{"title":"检查员对指纹细微特征稀有性的认识一致性","authors":"Adele Quigley-McBride ,&nbsp;Heidi Eldridge ,&nbsp;Brett Gardner","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Friction ridge examiners (FREs) identify distinctive features (minutiae) in fingerprints and consider how rare these observed minutiae are in their decisions about both the value of a fingerprint and whether there is enough correspondence between two fingerprints to support an “identification” or “exclusion” decision. But subjective perceptions about the frequency of events and features tend to be inconsistent and dynamic, which means that variable perceptions of minutia frequency may contribute to inconsistencies in FREs’ opinions about fingerprint evidence. We surveyed expert FREs at two time points (<em>N</em><sub><em>Time 1</em></sub> = 132; <em>N</em><sub><em>Time 2</em></sub> = 99) to establish how rare FREs believe different minutia types to be and to determine the variation in examiners’ perceptions—both between different examiners and across time for the same examiner. We observed significantly less variation in FREs’ perceptions of minutia frequency for three minutiae: the two most common minutiae and the minutia perceived to be the least common. We also observed increases in FREs’ estimates of minutia frequency over time and when they reported recent sightings of the rarest minutiae. FREs reported frequently using this information in their fingerprint comparison decisions. We present practical recommendations for using these consensus-based frequency estimates (until more objective data are available) to increase consistency in FREs’ use of base rates when examining fingerprint evidence, which may consequently increase the repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made by FREs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"364 ","pages":"Article 112244"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examiner consistency in perceptions of fingerprint minutia rarity\",\"authors\":\"Adele Quigley-McBride ,&nbsp;Heidi Eldridge ,&nbsp;Brett Gardner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Friction ridge examiners (FREs) identify distinctive features (minutiae) in fingerprints and consider how rare these observed minutiae are in their decisions about both the value of a fingerprint and whether there is enough correspondence between two fingerprints to support an “identification” or “exclusion” decision. But subjective perceptions about the frequency of events and features tend to be inconsistent and dynamic, which means that variable perceptions of minutia frequency may contribute to inconsistencies in FREs’ opinions about fingerprint evidence. We surveyed expert FREs at two time points (<em>N</em><sub><em>Time 1</em></sub> = 132; <em>N</em><sub><em>Time 2</em></sub> = 99) to establish how rare FREs believe different minutia types to be and to determine the variation in examiners’ perceptions—both between different examiners and across time for the same examiner. We observed significantly less variation in FREs’ perceptions of minutia frequency for three minutiae: the two most common minutiae and the minutia perceived to be the least common. We also observed increases in FREs’ estimates of minutia frequency over time and when they reported recent sightings of the rarest minutiae. FREs reported frequently using this information in their fingerprint comparison decisions. We present practical recommendations for using these consensus-based frequency estimates (until more objective data are available) to increase consistency in FREs’ use of base rates when examining fingerprint evidence, which may consequently increase the repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made by FREs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic science international\",\"volume\":\"364 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112244\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic science international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824003268\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824003268","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摩擦纹检验员(FREs)识别指纹中的显著特征(细部特征),并在决定指纹的价值以及两枚指纹之间是否有足够的对应关系来支持 "识别 "或 "排除 "决定时,考虑这些观察到的细部特征的罕见程度。但是,对事件和特征频率的主观认识往往是不一致和动态的,这意味着对细微特征频率的不同认识可能会导致指纹鉴定专家对指纹证据的意见不一致。我们在两个时间点(NT 时间 1 = 132;NT 时间 2 = 99)对专家 FRE 进行了调查,以确定 FRE 认为不同细部特征类型的罕见程度,并确定检查员在不同检查员之间以及同一检查员在不同时间段内的认知差异。我们观察到,FREs 对三种细微特征频率的认知差异明显较小:两种最常见的细微特征和认为最不常见的细微特征。我们还观察到,随着时间的推移,以及当他们报告最近看到最罕见的细微特征时,FREs 对细微特征频率的估计会增加。指纹识别专家报告说,他们在做出指纹比对决定时经常使用这些信息。我们提出了使用这些基于共识的频率估计值的实用建议(在获得更多客观数据之前),以提高指纹鉴定师在审查指纹证据时使用基准率的一致性,从而提高指纹鉴定师所做决定的可重复性和再现性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examiner consistency in perceptions of fingerprint minutia rarity
Friction ridge examiners (FREs) identify distinctive features (minutiae) in fingerprints and consider how rare these observed minutiae are in their decisions about both the value of a fingerprint and whether there is enough correspondence between two fingerprints to support an “identification” or “exclusion” decision. But subjective perceptions about the frequency of events and features tend to be inconsistent and dynamic, which means that variable perceptions of minutia frequency may contribute to inconsistencies in FREs’ opinions about fingerprint evidence. We surveyed expert FREs at two time points (NTime 1 = 132; NTime 2 = 99) to establish how rare FREs believe different minutia types to be and to determine the variation in examiners’ perceptions—both between different examiners and across time for the same examiner. We observed significantly less variation in FREs’ perceptions of minutia frequency for three minutiae: the two most common minutiae and the minutia perceived to be the least common. We also observed increases in FREs’ estimates of minutia frequency over time and when they reported recent sightings of the rarest minutiae. FREs reported frequently using this information in their fingerprint comparison decisions. We present practical recommendations for using these consensus-based frequency estimates (until more objective data are available) to increase consistency in FREs’ use of base rates when examining fingerprint evidence, which may consequently increase the repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made by FREs.
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
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
×
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