Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27303317›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016

Nosewitness Identification: Effects of Lineup Size and Retention Interval.

Laura Alho, Sandra C Soares, Liliana P Costa, Elisa Pinto, Jacqueline H T Ferreira, Kimmo Sorjonen, Carlos F Silva, Mats J Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Laura AlhoDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, AveiroPortugal; Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Life Sciences (IBILI), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, CoimbraPortugal.
Sandra C SoaresDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, AveiroPortugal; Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS.UA), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, PortoPortugal; Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, StockholmSweden.
Liliana P CostaDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro Portugal.
Elisa PintoDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro Portugal.
Jacqueline H T FerreiraDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, AveiroPortugal; Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Life Sciences (IBILI), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, CoimbraPortugal.
Kimmo SorjonenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Sweden.
Carlos F SilvaDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, AveiroPortugal; Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS.UA), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, PortoPortugal.
Mats J OlssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although canine identification of body odor (BO) has been widely used as forensic evidence, the concept of nosewitness identification by human observers was only recently put to the test. The results indicated that BOs associated with male characters in authentic crime videos could later be identified in BO lineup tests well above chance. To further evaluate nosewitness memory, we assessed the effects of lineup size (Experiment 1) and retention interval (Experiment 2), using a forced-choice memory test. The results showed that nosewitness identification works for all lineup sizes (3, 5, and 8 BOs), but that larger lineups compromise identification performance in similarity to observations from eye- and earwitness studies. Also in line with previous eye- and earwitness studies, but in disagreement with some studies on odor memory, Experiment 2 showed significant forgetting between shorter retention intervals (15 min) and longer retention intervals (1-week) using lineups of five BOs. Altogether this study shows that identification of BO in a forensic setting is possible and has limits and characteristics in line with witness identification through other sensory modalities.

Indexed as

forensic psychologylineup identificationlineup sizenosewitnessretention interval

Identifiers

PMID27303317
PMCPMC4884748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.