Abstract
Signatures are a complex and important biometric that have widespread international acceptance for verifying individual identity. As with other security measures, there are often attempts to mislead authorities by simulating genuine signatures. The ability to reliably identify genuine signatures from simulations is an area of forensic science of high value to legal proceedings, and several studies have established an expertise effect between forensic document examiners (FDEs) and control subjects. Eye movement recordings of the visual processing of FDEs during signature evaluations reveal that examiner expertise results from an enhanced capacity to process local features in the context of global information. In addition, eye movement studies allow for an understanding of how high- and low-complexity ranked signatures are visually inspected by subjects when making simulations. We discuss the importance of understanding the context of a work environment for designing experiments to reveal mechanisms of expertise used by professionals to do their job. We, thus, look at the normal work environment of FDEs for evaluating signatures and how the requirement of understanding expertise from a legal standpoint has facilitated considerable interest in eye-tracking technologies. In particular, we argue that the accurate modelling of the work environment is central to deriving parameters for use in eye movement studies to understand the role of expertise in subjects.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Busey, A., & Vanderkolk, J. R. (2004). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45, 431–448.
Chetwood, A. S. A., Kwok, K. W., Sun, L. W., Mylonas, G. P., Clark, J., Darzi, A., & Yang, G. Z. (2012). Collaborative eye tracking: a potential training tool in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 26. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2143-
Coen-Cagli, R., Coraggio, P., Napoletano, P., Ferraro, M., & Boccignone, G. (2009). Visuomotor characteristics of eye movements in a drawing task. Vision Research, 49, 810–818.
Dahir, V. B., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., & Merlino, M. L. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence: A research note. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 62–82.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 251–303.
Durina, M. E., & Caligiuri, M. P. (2009). Thedetermination of authorship from a homogenous group of writers. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, 12(2)
Dyer, A. G., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2006). Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1397–1404.
Dyer, A. G., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2008). An insight into forensic document examiner expertise for discriminating between forged and disguised signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 1154–1159.
Ellen, D. (1989). The scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited,
Faigman, D. I. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it ‘scientific,’ ‘technical,’or ‘other’ knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960–979.
Found, B., & Rogers, D. (1998). A consideration of the theoretical basis of forensic handwriting examination: The application of “Complexity Theory” to understanding the basis of handwriting identification. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, 4, 109–118.
Found, B., & Rogers, D. (1999). Documentation of forensic handwriting comparison and identification method: A modular approach. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, 1–68.
Found, B., Rogers, D., Rowe, V., & Dick, D. (1998). Statistical modelling of experts’ perceptions of the ease of signature simulation. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 11, 73–99.
Found, B., Sita, J., & Rogers, D. (1999). The development of a program for characterising forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise: Signature examination pilot study. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, 69–80.
Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: Results of a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433–458.
Gottesman, M. H. (1998). From barefoot to daubert to joiner: Triple play or double error? Arizona Law Review, 40, 753–780.
Hilton, O. (1982). Scientific examination of questioned documents. Elsevier New York: Science Publishing Co., Inc.
Huber, R. A., & Headrick, A. M. (1999). Handwriting identification: Facts and fundamentals. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Kam, M., Wetstein, J., & Conn, R. (1994). Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 5–14.
Kam, M., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (1997). Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 778–786.
Kam, M., Gummadidala, K., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (2001). Signature authentification by forensic document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 884–888.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Merlino, M. L., Springer, V., Kelly, J. S., Hammond, D., Sahota, E., & Haines, L. (2008a). Meeting the challenges of the daubert trilogy: Refining and redefining the reliability of forensic evidence. Tulsa Law Review, 43, 417–445.
Merlino, M. L., Murray, C. I., & Richardson, J. T. (2008b). Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 187–206.
Miall, R. C., Gowen, E., & Tchalenko, J. (2009). Drawing cartoon faces—a functional imaging study of the cognitive neuroscience of drawing. Cortex, 45, 394–406.
Nodine, C. F., Mello-Thoms, C., Kundel, H. L., & Weinstein, S. P. (2002). Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. American Journal of Roentgenology, 179, 917–923.
Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception. Science, 171, 308–311.
Osborn, A. S. (1929). Questioned documents (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co.
Pepe, A., Rogers, D., & Sita, J. C. (2012). A consideration of signature complexity using simulators’ gaze behaviour. Journal of Forensic Document Examination. In press.
Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players. Psychological Science, 12, 48–55.
Rival, C., Oliver, I., & Ceyte, H. (2003). Effects of temporal and/or spatial instructions on the speed accuracy tradeoff of pointing movements in children. Neuroscience Letters, 336, 65–69.
Sasson, N. J., & Elison, J. T. (2012). Eye tracking young children with autism. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (61), e3675 10.3791/3675, DOI: 10.3791/3675.
Sita, J., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2002). Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 1117–1124.
Tanaka, J., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.
Tatler, B. W., Hayhoe, M. M., Land, M. F., & Ballard, D. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–23. http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/5/5,doi:10.1167/11.5.5.
Tomizawa, Y., Aoki, H., Suzuki, S., Matayoshi, T., & Yozu, R. (2012). Eye-tracking analysis of skilled performance in clinical extracorporeal circulation. Journal of Artificial Organs, 15(2), 146–157. DOI: 10.1007/s10047-012-0630-z.
US v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 – Dist. Court, SD New York 1995
Vassallo, S., Cooper, S. L. C., & Douglas, J. M. (2009). Visual scanning in the recognition of facial affect: Is there an observer sex difference? Journal of Vision, 9, 1–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dyer, A., Found, B., Merlino, M., Pepe, A., Rogers, D., Sita, J. (2014). Eye Movement Evaluation of Signature Forgeries: Insights to Forensic Expert Evidence. In: Horsley, M., Eliot, M., Knight, B., Reilly, R. (eds) Current Trends in Eye Tracking Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02868-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02868-2_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02867-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02868-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)