Do Sequential Lineups Impair Discriminability?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Philip Kaesler ◽  
John C Dunn ◽  
Keith Ransom ◽  
Carolyn Semmler
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Feature Detection ◽  
Eyewitness Memory ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Diagnostic Feature ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Sequential Lineups ◽  
Measurement Models ◽  
Sequential Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures

The debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than thirty years. We argue that to resolve this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we develop models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and use these to compare the procedures in terms of discriminability and response bias. We tested a key prediction of the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis that discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255) and to data from a new experiment. The results of both investigations showed that discriminability did not differ between the two procedures, while responses were more conservative for sequential presentation compared to simultaneous presentation. We conclude that the two procedures do not differ in the efficiency with which they allow eyewitness memory to be expressed. We discuss the implications of this for the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis and other sequential lineup procedures used in current jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Designing police lineups to maximize memory performance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Morgan Seale-Carlisle ◽  
Stacy Ann Wetmore ◽  
Heather D Flowe ◽  
Laura Mickes
Keyword(s):  
Memory Performance ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Simultaneous Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures ◽  
Lineup Procedure

How can lineups be designed to elicit the best achievable memory performance? One step toward that goal is to compare lineup procedures. In a recent comparison of US and UK lineup procedures, discriminability and reliability was better when memory was tested using the US procedure. However, because there are so many differences between the procedures, it is unclear what explains this superior performance. The main goal of the current research is therefore to systematically isolate the differences between the US and UK lineups to determine their effects on discriminability and reliability. In five experiments, we compared (1) presentation format: simultaneous vs. sequential; (2) stimulus format: photos vs. videos; (3) number of views: 1-lap vs. 2-lap vs. choice in both video and photo lineups; and (4) lineup size: 6- versus 9-lineup members. Most of the comparisons did not show appreciable differences, but one comparison did: simultaneous presentation yielded better discriminability than sequential presentation. If the results replicate, then policymakers should recommend using a simultaneous lineup procedure. Moreover, consistent with previous research, identifications made with high confidence were higher in reliability than identifications made with low confidence. Thus, official lineup protocols should require collecting confidence because of the diagnostic value added.

Human tool behavior is species-specific and remains unique

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-222
Author(s):  
Susan Cachel
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Diagnostic Feature ◽  
Archaeological Record ◽  
Species Specific

AbstractHuman tool behavior is species-specific. It remains a diagnostic feature of humans, even when comparisons are made with closely related non-human primates. The archaeological record demonstrates both the deep antiquity of human tool behavior and its fundamental role in distinguishing human behavior from that of non-human primates.

scholarly journals Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.C.L. Lindsay ◽  
Jamal K. Mansour ◽  
Jennifer L. Beaudry ◽  
Amy-May Leach ◽  
Michelle I. Bertrand
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Sequential Lineups

scholarly journals Testing encoding specificity and the diagnostic feature-detection theory of eyewitness identification, with implications for showups, lineups, and partially disguised perpetrators

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Curt A. Carlson ◽  
Jacob A. Hemby ◽  
Alex R. Wooten ◽  
Alyssa R. Jones ◽  
Robert F. Lockamyeir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feature Detection ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Detection Theory ◽  
Diagnostic Information ◽  
Diagnostic Feature ◽  
Exterior Region ◽  
Facial Information ◽  
The Face ◽  
Encoding Specificity ◽  
Encoding And Retrieval

AbstractThe diagnostic feature-detection theory (DFT) of eyewitness identification is based on facial information that is diagnostic versus non-diagnostic of suspect guilt. It primarily has been tested by discounting non-diagnostic information at retrieval, typically by surrounding a single suspect showup with good fillers to create a lineup. We tested additional DFT predictions by manipulating the presence of facial information (i.e., the exterior region of the face) at both encoding and retrieval with a large between-subjects factorial design (N = 19,414). In support of DFT and in replication of the literature, lineups yielded higher discriminability than showups. In support of encoding specificity, conditions that matched information between encoding and retrieval were generally superior to mismatch conditions. More importantly, we supported several DFT and encoding specificity predictions not previously tested, including that (a) adding non-diagnostic information will reduce discriminability for showups more so than lineups, and (b) removing diagnostic information will lower discriminability for both showups and lineups. These results have implications for police deciding whether to conduct a showup or a lineup, and when dealing with partially disguised perpetrators (e.g., wearing a hoodie).

scholarly journals Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures

Memory ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather D. Flowe ◽  
Harriet M. J. Smith ◽  
Nilda Karoğlu ◽  
Tochukwu O. Onwuegbusi ◽  
Lovedeep Rai
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures

Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions: Comparison of Sequential versus Simultaneous Presentation of Primary-Tone Pairs

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (09) ◽  
pp. 471-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall C. Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Simultaneous Protocol ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

This Grason-Stadler GSI-60 system for measuring distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) allows the examiner to present one set of primary-tone pairs at a time (i.e., sequential presentation), or to present as many as four sets of primary-tone pairs at a time (i.e., simultaneous presentation). The Sequential and Simultaneous protocols were used to compare administration times, DPOAEs, and noise floors (NFs) on normal-hearing subjects at three frequencies (f2 = 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) and eight intensities (L1 = 40–75 dB SPL in 5 dB steps; L2 = 30–65 dB SPL). The Simultaneous protocol was completed in less than half the time (mean = 2 minutes, 21 seconds) required for the Sequential protocol (mean = 5 minutes, 13 seconds). When stimulus intensity (L1) was <60 dB SPL, the Sequential and Simultaneous protocols yielded similar DPOAEs and NFs. However, at the higher L1 intensities, the NFs for the Simultaneous protocol were larger than those for the Sequential protocol. The higher Simultaneous NFs reflect the greater system distortion/noise generated by the GSI-60 instrumentation. Reliability was assessed using the standard error of measurement of the difference between two scores. The data revealed no significant differences between protocols, and suggest that differences between two DPOAEs are statistically significant if they exceed ~7 dB (95% confidence interval). Este sistema Grason-Stadler (GSI-60) para la medición de emisiones otoacústicas por productos de distorsión (DPOAE) permite al examinador la presentación de un juego de pares de tonos primarios al mismo tiempo (p.e., presentación secuencial), o presentar hasta cuatro juegos de pares de tonos primarios a la vez (p.e., presentación simultánea). Se utilizaron los protocolos Secuencial y Simultáneo para comparar los tiempos de administración, las DPOAE y los pisos de ruido (NF) en sujetos normo-oyentes, en tres frecuencias (f2 = 1000, 2000 y 4000 Hz) y ocho intensidades (L1 = 40-75 dB en pasos de 5 dB; L2 = 30-65 dB SPL). El protocolo Simultáneo se completó en menos de la mitad del tiempo (media = 2 minutos, 21 segundos) requerido por el protocolo Secuencial (media = 5 minutos, 13 segundos). Cuando la intensidad del estímulo (L1) fue £60 dB SPL, los protocolos Secuencial y Simultáneo rindieron DPOAE y NF similares. Sin embargo, en las intensidades L1 más altas, los NF para el protocolo Simultáneo fueron mayores que aquellas para el protocolo Secuencial. Los NF Simultáneos más altos reflejan la mayor distorsión/ruido del sistema, generado por la instrumentación del GSI-60. La confiabilidad fue evaluada utilizando el error estándar de medición de la diferencia entre los dos puntajes. Los datos revelaron que no había diferencias significativas entre los protocolos, y sugieren que las diferencias entre dos DPOAE son estadísticamente significativas si exceden ~7 dB (intervalo de confianza del 95%).

Improving Soccer Knowledge From Computerized Game Diagrams: Benefits of Sequential Instructional Arrows

2021 ◽  
Vol 128 (2) ◽  
pp. 912-931
Author(s):  
Ghazi Rekik ◽  
Yosra Belkhir ◽  
Mohamed Jarraya
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Relative Advantage ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Presentation Methods ◽  
Sequential Diagram

In this study, we used Cognitive Load Theory to examine the role of a sequential versus simultaneous presentation technique for learning tactical skills from computerized diagrams of soccer scenes with two levels of complexity. Young soccer players learned the evolution of soccer game systems from computer-based diagrams with three types of instructional arrows: simultaneous, sequential-without-tracing, and sequential-with-tracing. We randomly assigned participants to one of six experimental conditions (three arrow presentation methods by two levels of soccer scene complexity) and asked them to rate their invested mental efforts, complete a recall-reconstruction test, and indicate their attitudes, immediately after the learning phase. When diagram content complexity was low, the three types of arrow presentations had similar learning effects. However, when diagram content complexity was high, the two sequential means of presenting instructional arrows produced better learning outcomes (with a clear relative advantage for the sequential-with-tracing presentation). We also found that the sequential presentation of arrows elicited more positive player attitudes whatever the level of content complexity. Considering the better learning outcomes and improved player attitudes from sequential diagram presentations, soccer coaches should present computer-based instructional diagram arrows sequentially, rather than simultaneously. A sequential-with-tracing arrow presentation was particularly beneficial for learning complex team sport scenes.

scholarly journals Optimizing portion-size estimation aids: a formative evaluation in Malawi

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (17) ◽  
pp. 3127-3139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney H Schnefke ◽  
Chrissie Thakwalakwa ◽  
Mary K Muth ◽  
John Phuka ◽  
Jennifer Coates ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Formative Evaluation ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Resource Setting ◽  
Visual Characteristics ◽  
Portion Size Estimation

AbstractObjective:To investigate preferences for and ease-of-use perceptions of different aspects of printed and digitally displayed photographic portion-size estimation aids (PSEA) in a low-resource setting and to document accuracy of portion-size selections using PSEA with different visual characteristics.Design:A convergent mixed-methods design and stepwise approach were used to assess characteristics of interest in isolation. Participants served themselves food and water, which were weighed before and after consumption to measure leftovers and quantity consumed. Thirty minutes later, data collectors administered a meal recall using a PSEA and then a semi-structured interview.Setting:Blantyre and Chikwawa Districts in the southern region of Malawi.Participants:Ninety-six women, aged 18–45 years.Results:Preferences and ease-of-use perceptions favoured photographs rather than drawings of shapes, three and five portion-size options rather than three with four virtual portion-size options, a 45° rather than a 90° photograph angle, and simultaneous rather than sequential presentation of portion-size options. Approximately half to three-quarters of participants found the portion-size options represented appropriate amounts of foods or water consumed. Photographs with three portion sizes resulted in more accurate portion-size selections (closest to measured consumption) than other format and number of portion-size option combinations. A 45° angle and simultaneous presentation were more accurate than a 90° angle and sequential presentation of images.Conclusions:Results from testing PSEA visual characteristics separately can be used to generate optimal PSEA, which can improve participants’ experiences during meal recalls.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document