• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用机器学习分析来探究目击者辨认行为与嫌疑人有罪之间的关系。

Using machine learning analyses to explore relations between eyewitness lineup looking behaviors and suspect guilt.

机构信息

Department of Psychology.

出版信息

Law Hum Behav. 2020 Jun;44(3):223-237. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000364. Epub 2020 Feb 27.

DOI:10.1037/lhb0000364
PMID:32105097
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We conducted 2 experiments using machine learning to better understand which lineup looking behaviors postdict suspect guilt., Hypotheses: We hypothesized that (a) lineups with guilty suspects would be subject to shorter viewing duration of all images and fewer image looks overall than lineups with innocent suspects, and (b) confidence and accuracy would be positively correlated. The question of which factors would combine to best postdict suspect guilt was exploratory.

METHOD

Experiment 1 included 405 children (6-14 years; 43% female) who each made 2 eyewitness identifications after viewing 2 live targets. Experiment 2 included 342 adult participants ( = 21.00; females = 75%) who each made 2 identifications after viewing a video including 2 targets. Participants made identifications using an interactive touchscreen simultaneous lineup in which they were restricted to viewing one image at a time and their interaction with the lineup was recorded.

RESULTS

In Experiment 1, five variables (filler look time, suspect look time, number of suspect looks, number of filler looks, and winner look time) together postdicted (with a 67% accuracy score) target presence. In Experiment 2, four variables (number of suspect looks, number of filler looks, number of loser looks, and winner looks) together postdicted (with a 73% accuracy score) target presence.

CONCLUSIONS

Further exploration of witness search behaviors can provide context to identification decisions. Understanding which behaviors postdict suspect guilt may assist with interpretation of identification decisions in the same way that decision confidence is currently used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

目的

我们通过两项实验使用机器学习来更好地理解哪些辨认过程中的线索观察行为可以预测嫌疑人有罪。

假设

我们假设(a)辨认过程中出现有罪嫌疑人时,与无辜嫌疑人相比,所有图像的观看持续时间会更短,整体图像观看次数会更少;(b)信心和准确性呈正相关。哪些因素结合起来可以最好地预测嫌疑人有罪,这是一个探索性问题。

方法

实验 1 包括 405 名儿童(6-14 岁;43%为女性),他们在观看 2 个现场目标后,每人进行了 2 次目击证人辨认。实验 2 包括 342 名成年参与者(平均年龄为 21.00 岁;女性占 75%),他们在观看包括 2 个目标的视频后,每人进行了 2 次辨认。参与者使用交互式触摸屏同时进行辨认,他们一次只能观看一个图像,并且他们与辨认过程的互动被记录下来。

结果

在实验 1 中,五个变量(填充图像观察时间、嫌疑人图像观察时间、嫌疑人观察次数、填充图像观察次数和胜者观察时间)共同预测了目标的存在(准确率为 67%)。在实验 2 中,四个变量(嫌疑人观察次数、填充图像观察次数、输家观察次数和胜者观察次数)共同预测了目标的存在(准确率为 73%)。

结论

进一步探索证人搜索行为可以为识别决策提供背景信息。了解哪些行为可以预测嫌疑人有罪,可能有助于解释识别决策,就像目前使用决策信心一样。(美国心理协会,2020)

相似文献

1
Using machine learning analyses to explore relations between eyewitness lineup looking behaviors and suspect guilt.利用机器学习分析来探究目击者辨认行为与嫌疑人有罪之间的关系。
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Jun;44(3):223-237. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000364. Epub 2020 Feb 27.
2
The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.单一列队范式:一种在目击者识别实验中操纵目标存在的新方法。
Law Hum Behav. 2018 Feb;42(1):1-12. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000272.
3
Why are lineups better than showups? A test of the filler siphoning and enhanced discriminability accounts.为什么列队辨认优于单纯辨认?对填充虹吸和增强可辨别性解释的检验。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2020 Mar;26(1):124-143. doi: 10.1037/xap0000218. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
4
Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.记忆强度和阵容展示会调节管理人员影响对错误辨认的作用。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2017 Dec;23(4):460-473. doi: 10.1037/xap0000147.
5
The reveal procedure: A way to enhance evidence of innocence from police lineups.揭示程序:一种增强警方列队辨认中无罪证据的方法。
Law Hum Behav. 2022 Apr;46(2):164-173. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000478. Epub 2022 Jan 27.
6
Estimation of eyewitness error rates in fair and biased lineups.公正和有偏差的列队辨认中目击证人错误率的评估。
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Aug;47(4):463-483. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000538.
7
Estimating the proportion of guilty suspects and posterior probability of guilt in lineups using signal-detection models.使用信号检测模型估计列队辨认中有罪嫌疑人的比例和有罪的后验概率。
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 May 13;5(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00219-4.
8
Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.管理员盲目性影响目击证人列队辨认结果的记录。
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Feb;44(1):71-87. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000352. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
9
The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups.同时列队辨认和连续列队辨认中目击证人辨认的影响。
Memory. 2007 Oct;15(7):746-54. doi: 10.1080/09658210701508401.
10
Unfair Lineups Make Witnesses More Likely to Confuse Innocent and Guilty Suspects.不公正的阵容使证人更有可能混淆无辜和有罪的嫌疑人。
Psychol Sci. 2016 Sep;27(9):1227-39. doi: 10.1177/0956797616655789. Epub 2016 Jul 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Reflector variables in augmented reality lineups: Assessing eyewitness identification reliability in children and adults with confidence, response time, and proximity to the lineup.增强现实辨认列队中的反射变量:利用信心、反应时间和与列队的接近程度评估儿童和成人目击证人辨认的可靠性。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 18;19(9):e0308757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308757. eCollection 2024.