↓ Skip to main content

The Nature of Expertise in Fingerprint Matching: Experts Can Do a Lot with a Little

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Nature of Expertise in Fingerprint Matching: Experts Can Do a Lot with a Little
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0114759
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew B Thompson, Jason M Tangen

Abstract

Expert decision making often seems impressive, even miraculous. People with genuine expertise in a particular domain can perform quickly and accurately, and with little information. In the series of experiments presented here, we manipulate the amount of "information" available to a group of experts whose job it is to identify the source of crime scene fingerprints. In Experiment 1, we reduced the amount of information available to experts by inverting fingerprint pairs and adding visual noise. There was no evidence for an inversion effect-experts were just as accurate for inverted prints as they were for upright prints-but expert performance with artificially noisy prints was impressive. In Experiment 2, we separated matching and nonmatching print pairs in time. Experts were conservative, but they were still able to discriminate pairs of fingerprints that were separated by five-seconds, even though the task was quite different from their everyday experience. In Experiment 3, we separated the print pairs further in time to test the long-term memory of experts compared to novices. Long-term recognition memory for experts and novices was the same, with both performing around chance. In Experiment 4, we presented pairs of fingerprints quickly to experts and novices in a matching task. Experts were more accurate than novices, particularly for similar nonmatching pairs, and experts were generally more accurate when they had more time. It is clear that experts can match prints accurately when there is reduced visual information, reduced opportunity for direct comparison, and reduced time to engage in deliberate reasoning. These findings suggest that non-analytic processing accounts for a substantial portion of the variance in expert fingerprint matching accuracy. Our conclusion is at odds with general wisdom in fingerprint identification practice and formal training, and at odds with the claims and explanations that are offered in court during expert testimony.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 24%
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,700,251
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#34,479
of 194,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,702
of 331,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#517
of 3,609 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,609 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.