Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison

• Published in: Forensic science international Vol. 208; no. 1; pp. 10 - 17
• Main Authors: Dror, Itiel E, Champod, Christophe, Langenburg, Glenn, Charlton, David, Hunt, Heloise, Rosenthal, Robert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ireland Ltd 20-05-2011; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier Sequoia S.A
• Subjects: Allocations; Analysis of Variance; Attention; Bias; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical decision making; Cognition; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive ability; Comparative analysis; Consistency; Context; Data processing; Decision making; Dermatoglyphics; DNA fingerprints; Experts; Fingerprint analysis; Fingerprints; Forensic medicine; Forensic science; Forensic sciences; Friction; General aspects; Human cognition; Humans; Information processing; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Latent fingerprinting; Latent fingerprints; Medical sciences; Observer Variation; Pathology; Perceptions; Prints; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Reproducibility of Results; Ridges; Skin friction; Visual; Visual perception; Visual signals; Visual thresholds; Fingerprint analysis; Latent fingerprinting; Human cognition; Human; Fingerprint; Targeting; Forensic science; Legal medicine; Expert; Forensic aspect; Cognition; Latent; Target; Analysis; Fingerprint method; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0379-0738; 1872-6283
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013

Abstract Deciding whether two fingerprint marks originate from the same source requires examination and comparison of their features. Many cognitive factors play a major role in such information processing. In this paper we examined the consistency (both between- and within-experts) in the analysis of latent marks, and whether the presence of a ‘target’ comparison print affects this analysis. Our findings showed that the context of a comparison print affected analysis of the latent mark, possibly influencing allocation of attention, visual search, and threshold for determining a ‘signal’. We also found that even without the context of the comparison print there was still a lack of consistency in analysing latent marks. Not only was this reflected by inconsistency between different experts, but the same experts at different times were inconsistent with their own analysis. However, the characterization of these inconsistencies depends on the standard and definition of what constitutes inconsistent. Furthermore, these effects were not uniform; the lack of consistency varied across fingerprints and experts. We propose solutions to mediate variability in the analysis of friction ridge skin.