Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0
Heather Kleider-Offutt, Beth Stevens, Laura Mickes, Stewart Boogert
{"title":"Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification.","authors":"Heather Kleider-Offutt, Beth Stevens, Laura Mickes, Stewart Boogert","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence is already all around us, and its usage will only increase. Knowing its capabilities is critical. A facial recognition system (FRS) is a tool for law enforcement during suspect searches and when presenting photos to eyewitnesses for identification. However, there are no comparisons between eyewitness and FRS accuracy using video, so it is unknown whether FRS face matches are more accurate than eyewitness memory when identifying a perpetrator. Ours is the first application of artificial intelligence to an eyewitness experience, using a comparative psychology approach. As a first step to test system accuracy relative to eyewitness accuracy, participants and an open-source FRS (FaceNet) attempted perpetrator identification/match from lineup photos (target-present, target-absent) after exposure to real crime videos with varied clarity and perpetrator race. FRS used video probe images of each perpetrator to achieve similarity ratings for each corresponding lineup member. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis to measure discriminability, FRS performance was superior to eyewitness performance, regardless of video clarity or perpetrator race. Video clarity impacted participant performance, with the unclear videos yielding lower performance than the clear videos. Using confidence-accuracy characteristic analysis to measure reliability (i.e., the likelihood the identified suspect is the actual perpetrator), when the FRS identified faces with the highest similarity values, they were accurate. The results suggest FaceNet, or similarly performing systems, may supplement eyewitness memory for suspect searches and subsequent lineup construction and knowing the system's strengths and weaknesses is critical.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10991253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is already all around us, and its usage will only increase. Knowing its capabilities is critical. A facial recognition system (FRS) is a tool for law enforcement during suspect searches and when presenting photos to eyewitnesses for identification. However, there are no comparisons between eyewitness and FRS accuracy using video, so it is unknown whether FRS face matches are more accurate than eyewitness memory when identifying a perpetrator. Ours is the first application of artificial intelligence to an eyewitness experience, using a comparative psychology approach. As a first step to test system accuracy relative to eyewitness accuracy, participants and an open-source FRS (FaceNet) attempted perpetrator identification/match from lineup photos (target-present, target-absent) after exposure to real crime videos with varied clarity and perpetrator race. FRS used video probe images of each perpetrator to achieve similarity ratings for each corresponding lineup member. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis to measure discriminability, FRS performance was superior to eyewitness performance, regardless of video clarity or perpetrator race. Video clarity impacted participant performance, with the unclear videos yielding lower performance than the clear videos. Using confidence-accuracy characteristic analysis to measure reliability (i.e., the likelihood the identified suspect is the actual perpetrator), when the FRS identified faces with the highest similarity values, they were accurate. The results suggest FaceNet, or similarly performing systems, may supplement eyewitness memory for suspect searches and subsequent lineup construction and knowing the system's strengths and weaknesses is critical.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能在目击者识别中的应用。
人工智能已经在我们身边普及,而且其使用量只会越来越大。了解其功能至关重要。人脸识别系统(FRS)是执法部门在搜查嫌疑人和向目击者出示照片进行识别时的一种工具。然而,目前还没有使用视频对目击者和 FRS 的准确性进行比较,因此,在识别罪犯时,FRS 的人脸匹配是否比目击者的记忆更准确还不得而知。我们首次采用比较心理学方法,将人工智能应用于目击经验。作为测试系统相对于目击者准确性的第一步,参与者和开放源码的 FRS(FaceNet)在观看了不同清晰度和犯罪者种族的真实犯罪视频后,尝试根据列队照片(目标在,目标不在)进行犯罪者识别/匹配。FRS 使用每个犯罪者的视频探针图像来为每个相应的列队成员进行相似度评级。利用接收器操作特性分析来衡量辨别能力,无论视频清晰度或犯罪者种族如何,FRS 的表现都优于目击者的表现。视频清晰度影响参与者的表现,不清晰视频的表现低于清晰视频。利用置信度-准确度特性分析来衡量可靠性(即被识别的嫌疑人是真正作案者的可能性),当 FRS 识别出相似度值最高的人脸时,他们的识别是准确的。结果表明,FaceNet 或性能类似的系统可以在疑犯搜索和随后的列队构建中补充目击者记忆,了解系统的优缺点至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Fixation durations on familiar items are longer due to attenuation of exploration. Different facets of age perception in people with developmental prosopagnosia and "super-recognisers". Self-evaluations and the language of the beholder: objective performance and language solidarity predict L2 and L1 self-evaluations in bilingual adults. Correction: Distress reactions and susceptibility to misinformation for an analogue trauma event. Jack of all trades, master of one: domain-specific and domain-general contributions to perceptual expertise in visual comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1