ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2022
Statistical feature training improves fingerprint-matching accuracy in novices and professional fingerprint examiners.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normative face recognition ability test scores vary across online participant pools.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Beyond minutiae: inferring missing details from global structure in fingerprints.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- 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 effect of fingerprint expertise on visual short-term memory.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- The novel object-matching test (NOM Test): A psychometric measure of visual comparison ability.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2019 - 2022).Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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).
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.