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

  • Adrian G. Dyer
  • Bryan Found
  • Mara L. Merlino
  • Avni L. Pepe
  • Doug Rogers
  • Jodi C. Sita

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.

References

  1. Busey, A., & Vanderkolk, J. R. (2004). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45, 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Dyer, A. G., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2006). Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1397–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Ellen, D. (1989). The scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited,Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottesman, M. H. (1998). From barefoot to daubert to joiner: Triple play or double error? Arizona Law Review, 40, 753–780.Google Scholar
  18. Hilton, O. (1982). Scientific examination of questioned documents. Elsevier New York: Science Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Huber, R. A., & Headrick, A. M. (1999). Handwriting identification: Facts and fundamentals. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kam, M., Wetstein, J., & Conn, R. (1994). Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 5–14.Google Scholar
  21. Kam, M., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (1997). Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 778–786.Google Scholar
  22. Kam, M., Gummadidala, K., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (2001). Signature authentification by forensic document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 884–888.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception. Science, 171, 308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborn, A. S. (1929). Questioned documents (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players. Psychological Science, 12, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Sita, J., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2002). Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 1117–1124.Google Scholar
  35. Tanaka, J., & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 – Dist. Court, SD New York 1995Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian G. Dyer
    • 1
  • Bryan Found
    • 2
  • Mara L. Merlino
    • 3
  • Avni L. Pepe
    • 4
  • Doug Rogers
    • 4
  • Jodi C. Sita
    • 5
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Victoria PoliceMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Kentucky State UniversityFrankfortUSA
  4. 4.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.Australian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations