Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eye Movement Evaluation of Signature Forgeries: Insights to Forensic Expert Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Current Trends in Eye Tracking Research

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Busey, A., & Vanderkolk, J. R. (2004). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45, 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, A. G., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2006). Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1397–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, D. (1989). The scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited,

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Found, B., & Rogers, D. (1999). Documentation of forensic handwriting comparison and identification method: A modular approach. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottesman, M. H. (1998). From barefoot to daubert to joiner: Triple play or double error? Arizona Law Review, 40, 753–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, O. (1982). Scientific examination of questioned documents. Elsevier New York: Science Publishing Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, R. A., & Headrick, A. M. (1999). Handwriting identification: Facts and fundamentals. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, M., Wetstein, J., & Conn, R. (1994). Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, M., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (1997). Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 778–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, M., Gummadidala, K., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (2001). Signature authentification by forensic document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 884–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception. Science, 171, 308–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. S. (1929). Questioned documents (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepe, A., Rogers, D., & Sita, J. C. (2012). A consideration of signature complexity using simulators’ gaze behaviour. Journal of Forensic Document Examination. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players. Psychological Science, 12, 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sita, J., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2002). Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 1117–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 – Dist. Court, SD New York 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Adrian G. Dyer

  2. Victoria Police, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Bryan Found

  3. Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY, USA

    Mara L. Merlino

  4. La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Avni L. Pepe & Doug Rogers

  5. Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Jodi C. Sita

Authors
  1. Adrian G. Dyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan Found
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mara L. Merlino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Avni L. Pepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Doug Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jodi C. Sita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian G. Dyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Noosa Campus, Central Queensland University, Noosaville, Queensland, Australia

    Mike Horsley

  2. Noosa Campus, Central Queensland University, Noosaville, Queensland, Australia

    Matt Eliot

  3. Noosa Campus, Central Queensland University, Noosaville, Queensland, Australia

    Bruce Allen Knight

  4. Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Kildare, Ireland

    Ronan Reilly

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation