CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock

Davis, Josh P., Valentine, Tim·2009·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.1490
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The experiments reported in this paper investigated simultaneous identity matching of unfamiliar people physically present in person with moving video images typical of that captured by closed circuit television (CCTV). This simulates the decision faced by a jury in court when the identity of somebody caught on CCTV is disputed. Namely, ‘is the defendant in the dock the person depicted in video’? In Experiment 1, the videos depicted medium‐range views of a number of actor ‘culprits’. Experiment 2 used similar quality images taken a year previously, some of which showed the culprits in disguise. Experiment 3 utilised high‐quality close‐up video images. It was consistently found that in both culprit‐present and culprit‐absent videos and in optimal conditions, matching the identity of a person in video can be highly susceptible to error. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.1490

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year.

    “Previous research has shown that face aging makes unfamiliar face matching more difficult, increasing error by 20% when images are separated by more than a year [17, 22, 23] and so we expected error rates to be higher than in similar test using images taken on the same day [12].”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [22]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1080/13506280244000168 · DOI
  2. 10.1348/135532505X79672 · DOI
  3. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.4.339 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1111/1467‐9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1007/s10979‐006‐9006‐3 · DOI
  7. 10.3758/BF03211397 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/09541440340000439 · DOI
  9. 10.1017/CBO9780511759192.009 · DOI
  10. Cutler B. L., 1995, Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and the law
  11. 10.1348/000712600161907 · DOI
  12. Davis J. P.(2007).The forensic identification of CCTV images of unfamiliar faces.Unpublished PhD Thesis Goldsmiths University of London.
  13. 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0022-0965(77)90069-8 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/0096-3445.121.3.275 · DOI
  16. 10.1068/p080431 · DOI
  17. Gill M., 2003, CCTV, 81
  18. 10.1520/JFS15168J · DOI
  19. 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.3758/BF03201219 · DOI
  21. Home Office, 2007, National CCTV Strategy
  22. 10.1002/ACP.430 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/713756764 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/1099‐0720(200101/02)15:1<101::AID.‐ACP697>3.0.CO;2‐7 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/13506280444000382 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/02664769624008 · DOI
  27. 10.1017/CBO9780511759192.007 · DOI
  28. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.2466/PMS.92.2.517‐526 · DOI
  31. Norris C., 2004, Editorial. The growth of CCTV: A global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space, Surveillance & Society, 2, 110
  32. 10.1068/p3027 · DOI
  33. Phillips P. J. Scruggs W. T. O'Toole A. J. Flynn P. J. Bowyer K. W. Schott C. L. &Sharpe M.(2007).FRVT 2006 and ICE 2006 large‐scale results. Retrieved 15 April 2007 fromhttp://iris.nist.gov/ice/FRVT2006andICE2006LargeScaleReport.pdf · DOI
  34. 10.1016/S0379‐0738(00)00290‐5 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/BF01044385 · DOI
  36. Scheck B., 2000, Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted
  37. 10.2307/1422276 · DOI
  38. 10.1037/0033‐2909.100.2.139 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315 · DOI
  40. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999, Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement
  41. 10.1080/00224545.1994.9712199 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02747.x · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1529‐1006.2006. 00027.x · DOI
  44. 10.1111/1467‐8721.00189 · DOI
  45. 10.1023/A:1025750605807 · DOI
  46. 10.1068/p140737 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T.
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07-10
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
482-505
ISSN
  • 0888-4080
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.1490
Cited by
112
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review