Perpetrator Pose Reinstatement During a Lineup Test Increases Discrimination Accuracy

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2021 Jul 10

PMID 34244529

Citations 6

Authors

Melissa F Colloff

Travis M Seale-Carlisle

Nilda Karoglu

James C Rockey

Harriet M J Smith

Lisa Smith

John Maltby

Sergii Yaremenko

Heather D Flowe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We examined how encoding view influences the information that is stored in and retrieved from memory during an eyewitness identification task. Participants watched a mock crime and we varied the angle from which they viewed the perpetrator. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 2904) were tested with a static photo lineup; the viewing angle of the lineup members was the same or different from the perpetrator at encoding. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 1430) were tested with a novel interactive lineup in which they could rotate the lineup faces into any angle. In both experiments, discrimination accuracy was greater when the viewing angle at encoding and test matched. Participants reinstated the angle of the interactive faces to match their encoding angle. Our results highlight the importance of encoding specificity for eyewitness identification, and show that people actively seek out information in the testing environment that matches the study environment to aid memory retrieval.

Citing Articles

Reflector variables in augmented reality lineups: Assessing eyewitness identification reliability in children and adults with confidence, response time, and proximity to the lineup.

Price H, Fitzgerald R PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0308757.

PMID: 39292693 PMC: 11410227. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308757.

Does presenting perpetrator and innocent suspect faces from different facial angles influence the susceptibility of eyewitness memory? An investigation into the misinformation effect and eyewitness misidentification.

Deering K, Colloff M, Bennett T, Flowe H Front Psychol. 2024; 14:1213996.

PMID: 38606323 PMC: 11008745. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213996.

Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification.

Kleider-Offutt H, Stevens B, Mickes L, Boogert S Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):19.

PMID: 38568356 PMC: 10991253. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0.

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

Meyer M, Colloff M, Bennett T, Hirata E, Kohl A, Stevens L Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(41):e2301845120.

PMID: 37782811 PMC: 10576112. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2301845120.

Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time‑based Concealed Information Test: the effect of viewpoint congruency between test and encoding.

Sauerland M, Geven L, Bastiaens A, Verschuere B Psychol Res. 2023; 88(2):639-651.

PMID: 37477730 PMC: 10858071. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-023-01857-1.

References

Mickes L, Flowe H, Wixted J . Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013; 18(4):361-76. DOI: 10.1037/a0030609. View

Gilbert C, Bakan P . Visual asymmetry in perception of faces. Neuropsychologia. 1973; 11(3):355-62. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(73)90049-3. View

Brewer N, Wells G . The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006; 12(1):11-30. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11. View

Hill H, Schyns P, Akamatsu S . Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition. 1997; 62(2):201-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00785-8. View

Manley K, Chan J, Wells G . Do masked-face lineups facilitate eyewitness identification of a masked individual?. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018; 25(3):396-409. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000195. View

Seale-Carlisle T, Mickes L . US line-ups outperform UK line-ups. R Soc Open Sci. 2016; 3(9):160300. PMC: 5043314. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160300. View

Horry R, Brewer N, Weber N . The grain-size lineup: A test of a novel eyewitness identification procedure. Law Hum Behav. 2015; 40(2):147-58. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000166. View

Sauerland M, Sporer S . Fast and confident: postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009; 15(1):46-62. DOI: 10.1037/a0014560. View

Kolers P . Remembering operations. Mem Cognit. 2013; 1(3):347-55. DOI: 10.3758/BF03198119. View

10.

Colloff M, Flowe H, Smith H, Seale-Carlisle T, Meissner C, Rockey J . Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy. Am Psychol. 2021; 77(2):196-220. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000832. View

11.

Compo N, Carol R, Evans J, Pimentel P, Holness H, Nichols-Lopez K . Witness memory and alcohol: The effects of state-dependent recall. Law Hum Behav. 2016; 41(2):202-215. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000224. View

12.

Brewer N, Weber N, Guerin N . Police lineups of the future?. Am Psychol. 2019; 75(1):76-91. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000465. View

13.

Grill-Spector K, Kushnir T, Edelman S, Avidan G, Itzchak Y, Malach R . Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron. 2000; 24(1):187-203. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80832-6. View

14.

Longmore C, Liu C, Young A . Learning faces from photographs. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008; 34(1):77-100. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.77. View

15.

Seale-Carlisle T, Wetmore S, Flowe H, Mickes L . Designing police lineups to maximize memory performance. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019; 25(3):410-430. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000222. View

16.

Hosie J, Milne A . The effect of experimental design on memory for typical and distinctive faces. Memory. 1996; 4(2):175-97. DOI: 10.1080/096582196389031. View

17.

Bruce V . Changing faces: visual and non-visual coding processes in face recognition. Br J Psychol. 1982; 73(Pt 1):105-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01795.x. View

18.

OToole A, Roark D, Abdi H . Recognizing moving faces: a psychological and neural synthesis. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002; 6(6):261-266. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01908-3. View

19.

Palmer M, Brewer N, Weber N, Nagesh A . The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013; 19(1):55-71. DOI: 10.1037/a0031602. View

20.

Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J . pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011; 12:77. PMC: 3068975. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77. View