Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37782811›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Enabling witnesses to actively explore faces and reinstate study-test pose during a lineup increases discriminability.

Marlene Meyer, Melissa F Colloff, Tia C Bennett, Edward Hirata, Amelia Kohl, Laura M Stevens, Harriet M J Smith, Tobias Staudigl, Heather D Flowe

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  2. Science, evidence, law, and justice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Marlene MeyerSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6893-0525
Melissa F ColloffSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6401-4872
Tia C BennettSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Edward HirataSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0495-2773
Amelia KohlSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Laura M StevensSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Harriet M J SmithSchool of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2712-5527
Tobias StaudiglDepartment of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich 80539, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2885-1280
Heather D FloweSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5343-5313
University of Birmingham · GBLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DENottingham Trent University · GBTechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate witness identification is a cornerstone of police inquiries and national security investigations. However, witnesses can make errors. We experimentally tested whether an interactive lineup, a recently introduced procedure that enables witnesses to dynamically view and explore faces from different angles, improves the rate at which witnesses identify guilty over innocent suspects compared to procedures traditionally used by law enforcement. Participants encoded 12 target faces, either from the front or in profile view, and then attempted to identify the targets from 12 lineups, half of which were target present and the other half target absent. Participants were randomly assigned to a lineup condition: simultaneous interactive, simultaneous photo, or sequential video. In the front-encoding and profile-encoding conditions, Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis indicated that discriminability was higher in interactive compared to both photo and video lineups, demonstrating the benefit of actively exploring the lineup members' faces. Signal-detection modeling suggested interactive lineups increase discriminability because they afford the witness the opportunity to view more diagnostic features such that the nondiagnostic features play a proportionally lesser role. These findings suggest that eyewitness errors can be reduced using interactive lineups because they create retrieval conditions that enable witnesses to actively explore faces and more effectively sample features.

Indexed as

Mental RecallRecognition, PsychologyGuiltHumansLaw EnforcementPolicediagnostic feature detection theoryencoding specificityeyewitness identificationinteractive lineup

Identifiers

PMID37782811
PMCPMC10576112
OpenAlexW4387246022

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.