Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34029319›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2021

Characterizing missed identifications and errors in latent fingerprint comparisons using eye-tracking data.

Thomas A Busey, Nicholas Heise, R Austin Hicklin, Bradford T Ulery, JoAnn Buscaglia

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The invisible 800-pound gorilla: expertise can increase inattentional blindness.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Thomas A BuseyPsychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America.
Nicholas HeiseIntelligence and Analytics, Noblis, Reston, Virginia, United States of America.
R Austin HicklinIntelligence and Analytics, Noblis, Reston, Virginia, United States of America.
Bradford T UleryIntelligence and Analytics, Noblis, Reston, Virginia, United States of America.
JoAnn BuscagliaResearch and Support Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8148-2018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Latent fingerprint examiners sometimes come to different conclusions when comparing fingerprints, and eye-gaze behavior may help explain these outcomes. missed identifications (missed IDs) are inconclusive, exclusion, or No Value determinations reached when the consensus of other examiners is an identification. To determine the relation between examiner behavior and missed IDs, we collected eye-gaze data from 121 latent print examiners as they completed a total 1444 difficult (latent-exemplar) comparisons. We extracted metrics from the gaze data that serve as proxies for underlying perceptual and cognitive capacities. We used these metrics to characterize potential mechanisms of missed IDs: Cursory Comparison and Mislocalization. We find that missed IDs are associated with shorter comparison times, fewer regions visited, and fewer attempted correspondences between the compared images. Latent print comparisons resulting in erroneous exclusions (a subset of missed IDs) are also more likely to have fixations in different regions and less accurate correspondence attempts than those comparisons resulting in identifications. We also use our derived metrics to describe one atypical examiner who made six erroneous identifications, four of which were on comparisons intended to be straightforward exclusions. The present work helps identify the degree to which missed IDs can be explained using eye-gaze behavior, and the extent to which missed IDs depend on cognitive and decision-making factors outside the domain of eye-tracking methodologies.

Indexed as

DermatoglyphicsEye-Tracking TechnologyDecision MakingFixation, OcularHumansObserver Variation

Identifiers

PMID34029319
PMCPMC8143401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.