Dataset Information

Characterizing missed identifications and errors in latent fingerprint comparisons using eye-tracking data.

ABSTRACT: Latent fingerprint examiners sometimes come to different conclusions when comparing fingerprints, and eye-gaze behavior may help explain these outcomes. missed identifications (missed IDs) are inconclusive, exclusion, or No Value determinations reached when the consensus of other examiners is an identification. To determine the relation between examiner behavior and missed IDs, we collected eye-gaze data from 121 latent print examiners as they completed a total 1444 difficult (latent-exemplar) comparisons. We extracted metrics from the gaze data that serve as proxies for underlying perceptual and cognitive capacities. We used these metrics to characterize potential mechanisms of missed IDs: Cursory Comparison and Mislocalization. We find that missed IDs are associated with shorter comparison times, fewer regions visited, and fewer attempted correspondences between the compared images. Latent print comparisons resulting in erroneous exclusions (a subset of missed IDs) are also more likely to have fixations in different regions and less accurate correspondence attempts than those comparisons resulting in identifications. We also use our derived metrics to describe one atypical examiner who made six erroneous identifications, four of which were on comparisons intended to be straightforward exclusions. The present work helps identify the degree to which missed IDs can be explained using eye-gaze behavior, and the extent to which missed IDs depend on cognitive and decision-making factors outside the domain of eye-tracking methodologies.

SUBMITTER: Busey TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8143401 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate ease of use and usefulness for nurses of visualizations of infectious disease transmission in a hospital.An observational study was used to evaluate perceptions of several visualizations of data extracted from electronic health records designed using a participatory approach. Twelve nurses in the master's program in an urban research-intensive nursing school participated in May 2015.A convergent parallel mixed method was used to evaluate nurses' perceptions on ease of use and usefulness of five visualization conveying trends in hospital infection transmission applying think-aloud, interview, and eye-tracking techniques.Subjective data from the interview and think-aloud techniques indicated that participants preferred the traditional line graphs in simple data representation due to their familiarity, clarity, and easiness to read. An objective quantitative measure of eye movement analysis (444,421 gaze events) identified a high degree of participants' attention span in infographics in all three scenarios. All participants responded with the correct answer within 1 min in comprehensive tests.A user-centric approach was effective in developing and evaluating visualizations for hospital infection transmission. For the visualizations designed by the users, the participants were easily able to comprehend the infection visualizations on both line graphs and infographics for simple visualization. The findings from the objective comprehension test and eye movement and subjective attitudes support the feasibility of integrating user-centric visualization designs into electronic health records, which may inspire clinicians to be mindful of hospital infection transmission. Future studies are needed to investigate visualizations and motivation, and the effectiveness of visualization on infection rate.This study designed visualization images using clinical data from electronic health records applying a user-centric approach. The design insights can be applied for visualizing patient data in electronic health records.

Project description:Grammar errors are a natural part of everyday written communication. They are not a uniform group, but vary from morphological errors to ungrammatical word order and involve different types of word classes. In this study, we examine whether some types of naturally occurring errors attract more attention than others during reading, measured by detection rates. Data from 211 Danish high school students were included in the analysis. They each read texts containing different types of errors: syntactic errors (verb-third word order), morphological agreement errors (verb conjugations; gender mismatches in NPs) and orthographic errors. Participants were asked to underline all errors they detected while reading for comprehension. We examined whether there was a link between the type of errors that participants did not detect, the type of errors which they produce themselves (as measured in a subsequent grammar quiz), and the type of errors that are typical of high school students in general (based on error rates in a corpus). If an error is infrequent in production, it may cause a larger surprisal effect and be more attended to. For the three subtypes of grammar errors (V3 word order, verb errors, NP errors), corpus error rates predicted detection rates for most conditions. Yet, frequency was not the only possible explanation, as phonological similarity to the correct form is entangled with error frequency. Explicit grammatical awareness also played a role. The more correct answers participants had in the grammar tasks in the quiz, the more errors they detected. Finally, we found that the more annoyed with language errors participants reported to be, the more errors they detected. Our study did not measure eye movements, but the differences in error detection patterns point to shortcomings of existing eye-tracking models. Understanding the factors that govern attention and reaction to everyday grammar errors is crucial to developing robust eye-tracking processing models which can accommodate non-standard variation. Based on our results, we give our recommendations for current and future processing models.

Dataset Information

Characterizing missed identifications and errors in latent fingerprint comparisons using eye-tracking data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets