1932

Abstract

The simultaneous six-pack photo lineup is a standard eyewitness identification procedure, consisting of one police suspect plus five physically similar fillers. The photo lineup is either a target-present array (the suspect is guilty) or a target-absent array (the suspect is innocent). The eyewitness is asked to search the six photos in the array with respect to a target template stored in memory (namely, the memory of the perpetrator's face). If the witness determines that the perpetrator is in fact in the lineup (detection), then the next step is to specify the position of the perpetrator's face in the lineup (localization). The witness may also determine that the perpetrator is not present and reject the lineup. In other words, a police lineup is a detection-plus-localization visual search task. Signal detection concepts that have long guided thinking about visual search have recently had a significant impact on our understanding of police lineups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100119-124537
2021-09-15
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/vision/7/1/annurev-vision-100119-124537.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100119-124537&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbey CK, Eckstein MP. 2000. Derivation of a detectability index for correlated responses in multiple-alternative forced-choice experiments. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17:2101–4
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albrecht AR, Scholl BJ. 2010. Perceptually averaging in a continuous visual world: extracting statistical summary representations over time. Psychol. Sci. 21:560–67
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amendola KL, Wixted JT. 2015. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of suspect identifications made by actual eyewitnesses from simultaneous and sequential lineups in a randomized field trial. J. Exp. Criminol. 11:263–84
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariely D. 2001. Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties. Psychol. Sci. 12:157–62
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkowitz SR, Garrett BL, Fenn KM, Loftus EF. 2021. Convicting with confidence? Why we should not over-rely on eyewitness confidence. Memory In press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron EL, Tai JC, Eckstein MP, Carrasco M. 2004. Signal detection theory applied to three visual search tasks: identification, yes/no detection and localization. Spat. Vis. 17:295–325
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chong SC, Treisman A. 2003. Representation of statistical properties. Vis. Res. 43:393–404
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark SE. 2003. A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 17:629–54
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Colloff MF, Wade KA, Strange D. 2016. Unfair lineups make witnesses more likely to confuse innocent and guilty suspects. Psychol. Sci. 27:1227–39
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Colloff MF, Wilson BM, Seale-Carlisle TM, Wixted JT 2021. Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups. PNAS 118:8e2017292118
    [Google Scholar]
  11. de Fockert J, Wolfenstein C. 2009. Rapid extraction of mean identity from sets of faces. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62:1716–22
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dobolyi DG, Dodson CS. 2013. Eyewitness confidence in simultaneous and sequential lineups: a criterion shift account for sequential mistaken identification overconfidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 19:345–57
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Droll JA, Abbey CK, Eckstein MP. 2009. Learning cue validity through performance feedback. J. Vis. 9:18
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Duncan J, Humphreys G. 1989. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol. Rev. 96:433–58
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eckstein MP, Abbey CK, Bochud FO. 2000. Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17:206–17
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans KK, Haygood TM, Cooper J, Culpan A-M, Wolfe JM 2016. A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast. PNAS 113:10292–97
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Greathouse SM, Kovera MB. 2009. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law Hum. Behav. 33:70–82
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Green DM, Swets JA. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  19. Gronlund SD, Carlson CA, Neuschatz JS, Goodsell CA, Wetmore SA et al. 2012. Showups versus lineups: an evaluation using ROC analysis. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 1:221–28
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gronlund SD, Wixted JT, Mickes L. 2014. Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23:3–10
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haberman J, Whitney D. 2009. Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35:718–34
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Innocence Proj 2020. Eyewitness identification reform Rep., Innocence Proj. New York: https://www.innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification-reform/
  23. Juslin P, Olsson N, Winman A. 1996. Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22:1304–16
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaesler M, Dunn JC, Ransom K, Semmler C. 2020. Do sequential lineups impair underlying discriminability?. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic 5:35
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lindsay RC, Wells GL. 1985. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:556–64
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Luus CAE, Wells GL. 1991. Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law Hum. Behav. 15:43–57
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mazyar H, van den Berg R, Ma WJ. 2012. Does precision decrease with set size?. J. Vis. 12:610
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Michel M, Geisler WS. 2011. Intrinsic position uncertainty explains detection and localization performance in peripheral vision. J. Vis. 11:118
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mickes L. 2015. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and confidence-accuracy characteristic analysis in investigations of system variables and estimator variables that affect eyewitness memory. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 4:93–102
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mickes L, Flowe HD, Wixted JT. 2012. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous and sequential lineups. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 18:361–76
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mickes L, Wixted JT 2021. Eyewitness memory. Oxford Handbook of Human Memory MJ Kahana, AD Wagner Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nat. Res. Counc 2014. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press
  33. Neumann MF, Schweinberger SR, Burton AM. 2013. Viewers extract mean and individual identity from sets of famous faces. Cognition 128:56–63
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ng GJP, Lleras A, Buetti S. 2018. Fixed-target efficient search has logarithmic efficiency with and without eye movements. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 80:1752–62
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Palmer EM, Fencsik DE, Flusberg SJ, Horowitz TS, Wolfe JM. 2011. Signal detection evidence for limited capacity in visual search. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73:2413–24
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Palmer J, Verghese P, Pavel M. 2000. The psychophysics of visual search. Vis. Res. 40:1227–68
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Penrod S, Cutler B. 1995. Witness confidence and witness accuracy: assessing their forensic relation. Psychol. Public Policy Law 1:817–45
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rotello CM, Chen T. 2016. ROC curve analyses of eyewitness identification decisions: an analysis of the recent debate. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 1:10
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith AM, Yang Y, Wells GL. 2020. Distinguishing between investigator discriminability and eyewitness discriminability: a method for creating full receiver operating characteristic curves of lineup identification performance. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15:589–607
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sporer SL, Penrod S, Read D, Cutler B. 1995. Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychol. Bull. 118:315–27
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Starr SJ, Metz CE, Lusted LB, Goodenough DJ. 1975. Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. Radiology 116:533–38
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Steblay NK, Dysart JE, Wells GL 2011. Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychol. Public Policy Law 17:99–139
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Steblay NM. 1997. Social influence in eyewitness recall: a meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law Hum. Behav. 21:283–97
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Swensson RG. 1996. Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing objects on images. Med. Phys. 23:1709–25
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Swensson RG, Judy PF. 1981. Detection of noisy visual targets: models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio. Percept. Psychophys. 29:521–34
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Treisman A, Gelade G. 1980. A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12:97–136
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Verghese P. 2001. Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach. Neuron 31:523–35
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Watson MR, Brennan AA, Kingstone A, Enns JT. 2010. Looking versus seeing: Strategies alter eye movements during visual search. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 17:543–49
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wells GL. 1993. What do we know about eyewitness identification?. Am. Psychol. 48:553–71
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wells GL, Bradfield AL. 1998.. “ Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:360–76
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wells GL, Kovera MB, Douglass AB, Brewer N, Meissner CA, Wixted JT. 2020. Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 44:3–36
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wells GL, Rydell SM, Seelau EP. 1993. The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:835–44
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wells GL, Steblay NK, Dysart JE. 2015. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Law Hum. Behav. 39:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wetmore S, Neuschatz JS, Gronlund SD, Wooten A, Goodsell CA, Carlson CA. 2015. Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 4:8–14
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wilson BM, Donnelly K, Christenfeld N, Wixted JT. 2019. Making sense of sequential lineups: an experimental and theoretical analysis of position effects. J. Mem. Lang. 104:108–25
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Wixted JT. 2020. The forgotten history of signal detection theory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 46:201–33
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wixted JT, Mickes L. 2014. A signal-detection-based diagnostic-feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. Psychol. Rev. 121:262–76
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wixted JT, Mickes L. 2018. Theoretical vs. empirical discriminability: the application of ROC methods to eyewitness identification. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 3:9
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wixted JT, Mickes L, Brewin CR, Andrews B 2021. Doing right by the eyewitness evidence: a response to Berkowitz et al. Memory In press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wixted JT, Mickes L, Dunn J, Clark SE, Wells W 2016. Relationship between confidence and accuracy for eyewitness identifications made from simultaneous and sequential police lineups. PNAS 113:304–9
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wixted JT, Mickes L, Fisher RP. 2018a. Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13:324–35
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wixted JT, Vul E, Mickes L, Wilson BM. 2018b. Models of lineup memory. Cogn. Psychol. 105:81–114
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wixted JT, Wells GL. 2017. The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: a new synthesis. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 18:10–65
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wixted JT, Wells GL, Loftus EF, Garrett BL. 2021. Test a witness's memory for a suspect only once. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. In press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100119-124537
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100119-124537
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error