Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forensic confirmation bias: the case of facial image comparison

Heyer, Rebecca, Semmler, Carolyn·2013·Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Abstract

Facial image comparison is the process of comparing a face with another (referred to as one-to-one facial image comparison or facial examination) or many others (one-to-many facial image comparison or facial review). As such it encompasses much of the basic visual cognition present in other forensic disciplines. The discipline has grown considerably since the introduction of facial recognition technology in the last decade (Spaun, 2007). Such technology is currently being used widely in the government and private sectors, including law enforcement (Phillips, 2011). Much like automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS), the current generation of identification facial recognition systems require a human in the loop (Spaun, 2009). Research conducted over the past decade has consistently found that, although significant, the role of the human is often underestimated by organisations implementing facial recognition technology (O’Toole, Jiang, Roark, & Abdi, 2006; Spaun, 2009). This is not surprising, given that the importance of understanding the human role has often been overshadowed by the promises of the technology. As a consequence, the requirements for human-centered system design and training have often been neglected.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.008

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Guidelines for training in facial comparison exist, but have not yet been subject to empirical validation.

    “Whilst guidelines for training in facial comparison do exist [19, 39, 40], these have not yet been subject to empirical validation.”

    From Error Rates in Users of Automatic Face Recognition Software (2015) · cites this paper as [40]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Bindemann, 2012, Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 277, 10.1037/a0029635 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Butavicius, 2008, An experiment on human face recognition performance for access control, vol. 5177
  3. Dror, 2012, The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 343, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02013.x · DOI
  4. Graves, 2011, The role of the human operator in image-based airport security technologies, Studies in Computational Intelligence, 338, 147, 10.1007/978-3-642-17764-4_5 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Jenkins, 2011, Stable face representations, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1671, 10.1098/rstb.2010.0379 · DOI
  6. Kassin, 2013, The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives and proposed solutions, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Mallett, 2010, An exploration of sample representativeness in anthropometric facial comparison, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1025, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01425.x · DOI
  8. Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Memory and Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Megreya, 2008, Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364, 10.1037/a0013464 · DOI
  11. Phillips, 2011, Improving face recognition technology, Computer, 44, 84, 10.1109/MC.2011.87 · DOI
  12. Pronin, 2007, Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37, 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001 · DOI
  13. Sexton, J. (2011). Proficiency tests in forensic science: A step towards identifying expertise (Unpublished Honours Thesis). The University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Heyer, R., & Semmler, C.
Venue
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Published
2013-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
68-70
ISSN
  • 2211-369X
  • 2211-3681
Cited by
15
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • Department of Prime Minister
  • Research Support for National Security Program (PR09-0078)

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