title: The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition.
abstract: Many forensic disciplines require experts to judge whether two complex patterns are sufficiently similar to conclude that both originate from the same source. Studies in this area have revealed that there are a number of factors that affect perception and judgment and that decisions are subjective and susceptible to extraneous influences (such as emotional context, expectation, and motivation). Some studies have shown that the same expert examiner, examining the same prints but within different contexts, may reach different and contradictory decisions. However, such effects are not always present; some examiners seem more susceptible to such influences than do others--especially when the pattern matching is "hard to call" and when the forensic experts are not aware that they are being observed in an experimental study. Studying forensic examiners can contribute to our understanding of expertise and decision making, as well as have implications for forensic science and other areas of expertise.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, England. i.dror@ucl.ac.uk
authors.forename: Itiel E
authors.initials: IE
authors.lastname: Dror
authors.forename: Simon A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Cole
mesh_terms: D003071:Cognition; D003415:Crime; D003416:Criminal Law; D003657:Decision Making; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D011939:Mental Recall; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011287:Prejudice; D012106:Research
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Jan;20(1):122-6
references.pmid: 19152544
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Apr 11;167(2-3):116-20
references.pmid: 16876354
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 May;62(5):1023-40
references.pmid: 19034812
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2000 Jun;6(2):148-57
references.pmid: 10937318
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2010 Mar 1;55(2):385-93
references.pmid: 20158594
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Sep;30(5):960-8
references.pmid: 15355129
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2006 Summer;34(2):310-9
references.pmid: 16789952
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 2009 Oct 30;191(1-3):e19; author reply e21
references.pmid: 19616906
references.citation: Science. 2004 May 14;304(5673):959
references.pmid: 15143260
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2009 May;54(3):571-82
references.pmid: 19432737
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Jan 6;156(1):74-8
references.pmid: 16325362
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Sep;175(3):597-601
references.pmid: 10954437
references.citation: Vision Res. 1998 Aug;38(15-16):2401-28
references.pmid: 9798007
references.citation: Vision Res. 2005 Feb;45(4):431-48
references.pmid: 15610748
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2001 Mar;46(2):294-308
references.pmid: 11305431
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Oct 25;181(1-3):36-9
references.pmid: 18849126
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2008 Jul;53(4):900-3
references.pmid: 18489557
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Apr;170(4):863-7
references.pmid: 9530024