Holistic processing is often characterized as a process by which objects are perceived as a whole rather than a compilation of individual features. This mechanism may play an important role in the development of perceptual expertise because it allows for rapid integration across image regions. The present work explores whether holistic processing is present in latent fingerprint examiners, who compare fingerprints collected from crime scenes against a set of standards taken from a suspect. We adapted a composite task widely used in the face recognition and perceptual expertise literatures, in which participants were asked to match only a particular half of a fingerprint with a previous image while ignoring the other half. We tested both experts and novices, using both upright and inverted fingerprints. For upright fingerprints, we found weak evidence for holistic processing, but with no differences between experts and novices with respect to holistic processing. For inverted fingerprints, we found stronger evidence of holistic processing, with weak evidence for differences between experts and novices. These relatively weak holistic processing effects contrast with robust evidence for holistic processing with faces and with objects in other domains of perceptual expertise. The data constrain models of holistic processing by demonstrating that latent fingerprint experts and novices may not substantively differ in terms of the amount of holistic processing and that inverted stimuli actually produced more evidence for holistic processing than upright stimuli. Important differences between the present fingerprint stimuli and those in the literature include the lack of verbal labels for experts and the absence of strong vertical asymmetries, both of which might contribute to stronger holistic processing signatures in other stimulus domains.

During fingerprint comparisons, a latent print examiner visually compares two impressions to determine whether or not they originated from the same source. They consider the amount of perceived detail in agreement or disagreement and accumulate evidence toward same source and different sources propositions. This evidence is then mapped to one of three conclusions: Identification, Inconclusive, or Exclusion. A limitation of this 3‐conclusion scale is it can lose information when translating the conclusion from the internal strength‐of‐evidence value to one of only three possible conclusions. An alternative scale with two additional values, support for different sources and support for common sources, has been proposed by the Friction Ridge Subcommittee of OSAC. The expanded scale could lead to more investigative leads but could produce complex trade‐offs in both correct and erroneous identifications. The aim of the present study was to determine the consequences of a shift to expanded conclusion scales in latent print comparisons. Latent print examiners each completed 60 comparisons using one of the two scales, and the resulting data were modeled using signal detection theory to measure whether the expanded scale changed the threshold for an “Identification” conclusion. When using the expanded scale, examiners became more risk‐averse when making “Identification” decisions and tended to transition both the weaker Identification and stronger Inconclusive responses to the “Support for Common Source” statement. The results demonstrate the utility of an expanded conclusion scale and also provide guidance for the adoption of these or similar scales.

Fingerprint examiners maintain decision thresholds that represent the amount of evidence required for an identification or exclusion conclusion. As measured by error rate studies (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(19):7733-8), these decision thresholds currently exhibit a preference for preventing erroneous identification errors at the expense of preventing erroneous exclusion errors. The goal of this study is to measure the decision thresholds for both fingerprint examiners and members of the general public, to determine whether examiners are more risk averse than potential jury members. To externally measure these decision thresholds, subjects manipulated decision criteria in a web-based visualization that reflects the trade-offs between erroneous identification decisions and erroneous exclusion decisions. Data from fingerprint examiners and the general public were compared to determine whether both groups have similar values as expressed by the placement of the decision criteria. The results of this study show that fingerprint examiners are more risk averse than members of the general public, although they align with error rate studies of fingerprint examiners. Demographic data demonstrate those factors that may contribute to differences in decision criterion placement, both between the two groups and between individuals within a group. The experimental methods provide a rich framework for measuring, interpreting, and responding to the values of society as applied to forensic decision-making.