IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0094617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forensic Comparison and Matching of Fingerprints: Using Quantitative Image Measures for Estimating Error Rates through Understanding and Predicting Difficulty

Author

Listed:
  • Philip J Kellman
  • Jennifer L Mnookin
  • Gennady Erlikhman
  • Patrick Garrigan
  • Tandra Ghose
  • Everett Mettler
  • David Charlton
  • Itiel E Dror

Abstract

Latent fingerprint examination is a complex task that, despite advances in image processing, still fundamentally depends on the visual judgments of highly trained human examiners. Fingerprints collected from crime scenes typically contain less information than fingerprints collected under controlled conditions. Specifically, they are often noisy and distorted and may contain only a portion of the total fingerprint area. Expertise in fingerprint comparison, like other forms of perceptual expertise, such as face recognition or aircraft identification, depends on perceptual learning processes that lead to the discovery of features and relations that matter in comparing prints. Relatively little is known about the perceptual processes involved in making comparisons, and even less is known about what characteristics of fingerprint pairs make particular comparisons easy or difficult. We measured expert examiner performance and judgments of difficulty and confidence on a new fingerprint database. We developed a number of quantitative measures of image characteristics and used multiple regression techniques to discover objective predictors of error as well as perceived difficulty and confidence. A number of useful predictors emerged, and these included variables related to image quality metrics, such as intensity and contrast information, as well as measures of information quantity, such as the total fingerprint area. Also included were configural features that fingerprint experts have noted, such as the presence and clarity of global features and fingerprint ridges. Within the constraints of the overall low error rates of experts, a regression model incorporating the derived predictors demonstrated reasonable success in predicting objective difficulty for print pairs, as shown both in goodness of fit measures to the original data set and in a cross validation test. The results indicate the plausibility of using objective image metrics to predict expert performance and subjective assessment of difficulty in fingerprint comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip J Kellman & Jennifer L Mnookin & Gennady Erlikhman & Patrick Garrigan & Tandra Ghose & Everett Mettler & David Charlton & Itiel E Dror, 2014. "Forensic Comparison and Matching of Fingerprints: Using Quantitative Image Measures for Estimating Error Rates through Understanding and Predicting Difficulty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094617
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094617
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094617&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0094617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.