ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2020
Human factors in forensic science: The cognitive mechanisms that underlie forensic feature-comparison expertise.
Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance criticality as a structural property of forensic expertise: Evidence from an institutional certification system.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Jack of all trades, master of one: domain-specific and domain-general contributions to perceptual expertise in visual comparison.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- The novel object-matching test (NOM Test): A psychometric measure of visual comparison ability.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- The role of inversion and face masks on simultaneous and delayed face matching tasks.PloS one · 2024Article
- Unpacking workplace stress and forensic expert decision-making: From theory to practice.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Statistical feature training improves fingerprint-matching accuracy in novices and professional fingerprint examiners.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Match me if you can: Evidence for a domain-general visual comparison ability.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices.PloS one · 2022Article
- Challenges to reasoning in forensic science decisions.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
- The effect of expertise, target usefulness and image structure on visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After a decade of critique from leading scientific bodies, forensic science research is at a crossroads. Whilst emerging research has shown that some forensic feature-comparison disciplines are not foundationally valid, others are moving towards establishing reliability and validity. Forensic examiners in fingerprint, face and handwriting comparison disciplines have skills and knowledge that distinguish them from novices. Yet our understanding of the basis of this expertise is only beginning to emerge. In this paper, we review evidence on the psychological mechanisms contributing to forensic feature-comparison expertise, with a focus on one mechanism:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.