The prevalence effect in fingerprint identification: Match and non‐match base‐rates impact misses and false alarms

Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners

Previously published methods for reducing the impact of cognitive bias in forensic decision making have focused primarily on actions at the laboratory or organizational levels. This paper presents generalized and specific actions that forensic science practitioners can take to reduce the impact of cognitive bias in their work. Practical examples illustrating ways that practitioners can implement many of the specific actions are also provided, along with some suggestions for handling court testimony about cognitive bias. The actions presented in this paper provide a means through which individual practitioners can take ownership for minimizing cognitive bias in their work. Such actions can provide supporting evidence to stakeholders that forensic practitioners acknowledge the existence of cognitive bias and its potential influence on their work, and they can also stimulate implementation of methods that focus on solutions at the laboratory and organizational levels.

Statistical feature training improves fingerprint-matching accuracy in novices and professional fingerprint examiners

Forensic science practitioners compare visual evidence samples (e.g. fingerprints) and decide if they originate from the same person or different people (i.e. fingerprint ‘matching’). These tasks are perceptually and cognitively complex—even practising professionals can make errors—and what limited research exists suggests that existing professional training is ineffective. This paper presents three experiments that demonstrate the benefit of perceptual training derived from mathematical theories that suggest statistically rare features have diagnostic utility in visual comparison tasks. Across three studies (N = 551), we demonstrate that a brief module training participants to focus on statistically rare fingerprint features improves fingerprint-matching performance in both novices and experienced fingerprint examiners. These results have applied importance for improving the professional performance of practising fingerprint examiners, and even other domains where this technique may also be helpful (e.g. radiology or banknote security).

The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices

The low prevalence effect is a phenomenon whereby target prevalence affects performance in visual search (e.g., baggage screening) and comparison (e.g., fingerprint examination) tasks, such that people more often fail to detect infrequent target stimuli. For example, when exposed to higher base-rates of 'matching' (i.e., from the same person) than 'non-matching' (i.e., from different people) fingerprint pairs, people more often misjudge 'non-matching' pairs as 'matches'-an error that can falsely implicate an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. In this paper, we investigated whether forensic science training may mitigate the low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison. Forensic science trainees (n = 111) and untrained novices (n = 114) judged 100 fingerprint pairs as 'matches' or 'non-matches' where the matching pair occurrence was either high (90%) or equal (50%). Some participants were also asked to use a novel feature-comparison strategy as a potential attenuation technique for the low prevalence effect. Regardless of strategy, both trainees and novices were susceptible to the effect, such that they more often misjudged non-matching pairs as matches when non-matches were rare. These results support the robust nature of the low prevalence effect in visual comparison and have important applied implications for forensic decision-making in the criminal justice system.

A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework

Forensic analysts often receive information from a multitude of sources. Empirical work clearly demonstrates that biasing information can affect analysts' decisions, and that the order in which task-relevant information is received impacts human cognition and decision-making. Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU; Dror et al., 2015) and LSU-Expanded (LSU-E; Dror & Kukucka, 2021) are examples of research-based procedural frameworks to guide laboratories' and analysts' consideration and evaluation of case information. These frameworks identify parameters—such as objectivity, relevance, and biasing power—to prioritize and optimally sequence information for forensic analyses. Moreover, the LSU-E framework can be practically incorporated into any forensic discipline to improve decision quality by increasing the repeatability, reproducibility, and transparency of forensic analysts’ decisions, as well as reduce bias. Future implementation of LSU and LSU-E in actual forensic casework can be facilitated by concrete guidance. We present here a practical worksheet designed to bridge the gap between research and practice by facilitating the implementation of LSU-E.

•

Contextual information can influence how forensic analysts perceive, interpret, and evaluate evidence.

•

Proper information sequencing can reduce bias and improve the repeatability and reproducibility of forensic decisions.

•

Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E) prioritizes objective, relevant, and non-suggestive information.

•

To close the gap between research and practice, we developed a worksheet to help laboratories and analysts implement LSU-E.

•

This worksheet aims to optimize information sequencing and promote transparency in forensic decisions.

How one block of trials influences the next: persistent effects of disease prevalence and feedback on decisions about images of skin lesions in a large online study

Using an online, medical image labeling app, 803 individuals rated images of skin lesions as either "melanoma" (skin cancer) or "nevus" (a skin mole). Each block consisted of 80 images. Blocks could have high (50%) or low (20%) target prevalence and could provide full, accurate feedback or no feedback. As in prior work, with feedback, decision criteria were more conservative at low prevalence than at high prevalence and resulted in more miss errors. Without feedback, this low prevalence effect was reversed (albeit, not significantly). Participants could participate in up to four different conditions a day on each of 6 days. Our main interest was in the effect of Block N on Block N + 1. Low prevalence with feedback made participants more conservative on a subsequent block. High prevalence with feedback made participants more liberal on a subsequent block. Conditions with no feedback had no significant impact on the subsequent block. The delay between Blocks 1 and 2 had no significant effect. The effect on the second half of Block 2 was just as large as on the first half. Medical expertise (over the range available in the study) had no impact on these effects, though medical students were better at the task than other groups. Overall, these seem to be robust effects where feedback may be 'teaching' participants how to respond in the future. This might have application in, for example, training or re-training situations.

Match me if you can: Evidence for a domain-general visual comparison ability

Visual comparison-comparing visual stimuli (e.g., fingerprints) side by side and determining whether they originate from the same or different source (i.e., "match")-is a complex discrimination task involving many cognitive and perceptual processes. Despite the real-world consequences of this task, which is often conducted by forensic scientists, little is understood about the psychological processes underpinning this ability. There are substantial individual differences in visual comparison accuracy amongst both professionals and novices. The source of this variation is unknown, but may reflect a domain-general and naturally varying perceptual ability. Here, we investigate this by comparing individual differences (N = 248 across two studies) in four visual comparison domains: faces, fingerprints, firearms, and artificial prints. Accuracy on all comparison tasks was significantly correlated and accounted for a substantial portion of variance (e.g., 42% in Exp. 1) in performance across all tasks. Importantly, this relationship cannot be attributed to participants' intrinsic motivation or skill in other visual-perceptual tasks (visual search and visual statistical learning). This paper provides novel evidence of a reliable, domain-general visual comparison ability.

Feedback moderates the effect of prevalence on perceptual decisions

How does the prevalence of a target influence how it is perceived and categorized? A substantial body of work, mostly in visual search, shows that a higher proportion of targets are missed when prevalence is low. This classic low prevalence effect (LPE) involves a shift to a more conservative decision criterion that makes it less likely that observers will call an ambiguous item a target. In contrast, Levari et al. (Science, 360[6396], 1465-1467, 2018) recently reported the opposite effect in a simple categorization task. In their hands, at low prevalence, observers adopted a more liberal criterion, making observers more likely to label ambiguous dots on a blue-purple continuum "blue." They called this "prevalence-induced concept change" (PICC). Here, we report that the presence or absence of feedback is critical. With feedback, observers become more conservative at low prevalence, as in the LPE. Without feedback, they become more liberal, identifying a wider range of stimuli as targets, as in Levari's PICC studies. Stimuli from a shape continuum ranging from rounded ("Bouba") to bumpy ("Kiki") shapes produced similar results. Other variables: response type (2AFC vs. go/no-go), color (blue-purple vs. red-green), and stimuli type (solid color vs. texture) did not influence the criterion shifts. Understanding these effects of prevalence and ways they can be controlled illuminates the context-specific nature of perceptual decisions and may be useful in socially important, low prevalence tasks like cancer screening, airport security, and disease diagnosis in pathology.