Eyewitness Memory vs. Face Recognition Systems: Can Machines See Better Than We Do?

 Eyewitness misidentification is a well-documented problem that can have devastating consequences. While eyewitness accounts are often crucial in criminal investigations, scientific studies have shown that memory can be unreliable, especially under stressful circumstances. 

On the other hand, AI systems like Face Recognition Systems  (FRS) are becoming increasingly common in law enforcement. These systems can analyze footage from security cameras and other sources to identify suspects. But are they more reliable than human memory?

Kleider and colleagues' (2024) research addresses this critical question.  Their study compared the accuracy of FRS with human eyewitness identification in a controlled setting. Kleider and colleagues (2024) measured:

1. Discriminability is the ability to distinguish between the culprit and innocent suspects.
2.  Reliability is the relationship between confidence and accuracy.

Building a Diverse Sample

To investigate how well facial recognition systems compare to eyewitness memory, Kleider and colleagues (2024):

1. Recruited 237 participants through Georgia State University's undergraduate subject pool.
2. An online platform for research studies.
3. The participants were between 18 and 66 years old, and researchers aimed for a diverse group and reported their racial and gender makeup.

Can You Spot the Criminal? Testing Memory and Machines

The researchers pitted human memory against facial recognition technology in a two-part experiment, and here is how Kleider and colleagues (2024) did it:

1. Human participants watched crime scene videos online. After each video, they completed a distracting task before looking at a lineup with either the culprit or similar-looking innocent people; then, they had to identify the perpetrator or indicate they weren't present, along with their confidence level.
   
2. Secondly, the same videos and lineups were fed into the FRS, and just like law enforcement might do, the FRS grabbed a single frame of each culprit's face and compared it to every face in the lineup. It then generated a similarity score for each comparison.

Who Won the Face Recognition Showdown?

Kleider and colleagues (2024) concluded from their results:

1. The FRS generally did better than people, especially with blurry videos.
2. FRS and memory accuracy dropped for unclear videos, stressing the importance of good footage.
3. The tested FRS showed no racial bias, and surprisingly, eyewitness performance was alson't affected by race, possibly due to the study's diverse participants.
4. 
   The FRS ideally identified faces with the highest similarity scores, which suggests that prioritizing high-similarity matches in investigations could reduce mistakes.

The researchers caution that these results are based on one FRS and need confirmation with other systems and more video variations.  They also reveal that their research has implications for law enforcement:

• FRS as a Tool: FRS can be valuable, especially with low-quality videos. However, limitations and potential errors require cautious interpretation of results.
  
  
  
  

Interpreting FRS Outputs: Police officers should consider FRS similarity scores and other evidence.

Regulations and Training Needed: Law enforcement's widespread use of FRS demands clear rules and training programs to ensure proper use.

References

Kleider, Heather & Stevens, Beth & Mickes, Laura & Boogert, Stewart. (2024). Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification. Cognitive research: principles and implications. 9. 19. 10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0.

Why We Remember the Heart-Pounding Moments More Vividly: The Link Between Emotions and Memory

 Have you noticed how some memories seem burned into your brain while others fade like a forgotten dream? The answer might lie in the surprising connection between emotions and memory.

Our emotions influence how we remember the past. Events that trigger strong feelings, whether positive or negative, tend to be etched more deeply in our minds than those that leave us feeling neutral. Let's explore the fascinating science behind this phenomenon.

Emotional Events Leave a Stronger Mark

Imagine flipping through a photo album. The pictures that evoke strong emotions - a joyous wedding day, a tearful goodbye, a thrilling roller coaster ride - likely stand out more vividly than t

hose of a random Tuesday afternoon.  Research backs this up. Studies show that people remember arousing words like anger or excitement better than neutral ones like table or chair (Goldstein, 2019). The same goes for pictures - emotional scenes are more easily recalled after a long time than neutral ones.

The Amygdala: The Brain's Emotional Hub

So, what's happening in our brains to create this effect? A key player is the amygdala, a structure deep within the brain responsible for processing emotions. Goldstein (2019) explains the amygdala's role:

1. When we experience something emotionally charged, the amygdala becomes more active. This activity is thought to help us encode memory more effectively, making it more likely to be remembered later.

Emotions and Memory Consolidation

Goldstein (2019) writes that memories aren't formed and fixed in an instant :

• They go through a process of consolidation, where they are strengthened and stabilized over time, and emotions also play a role in this process.
• 
  Studies suggest that hormones released during emotional experiences, like cortisol, can enhance memory consolidation.
• This means emotionally charged events are encoded more effectively and better protected from fading away.

The Case of B.P.

The importance of the amygdala for emotional memory is further highlighted by a fascinating case study as told by Goldstein (2019):

1. Patient B.P. suffered damage to his amygdala. When shown a slideshow depicting a boy getting injured, B.P. could recall the first part of the story just fine, But not the emotional part where the boy gets hurt.
2. This suggests that a healthy amygdala is crucial for forming solid memories of emotional events.

The Power of Emotions in Shaping Our Memories

The link between emotions and memory helps us understand why certain events from our past remain so vivid and why traumatic experiences can be so difficult to forget. By understanding this connection, we can gain valuable insights into how our minds work and how emotions influence our perception of the past.

References

Goldstein, B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [Review of Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience]. Cengage.

Flashbulb Memories: Vivid Yet Flawed Snapshots of Shocking Events

 Have you ever had an experience etched so deeply in your mind that you can recall the tiniest details? Many people share this phenomenon with events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Goldstein (2019) states that these vivid memories of learning about public events are called flashbulb memories. But are they photographic snapshots of the past, or are they more like impressionistic paintings?

The Birth of a Term: Flashbulb Memories

Goldstein (2019) explains how the term was coined:

1. Psychologists Roger Brown and James Kulik coined the term flashbulb memory in 1977.
2. They were particularly interested in memories surrounding President John F. Kennedy's assassination. They believed that the emotional intensity of such events triggers a unique memory mechanism, creating a permanent, detailed record of how we learned about them.

Flashbulb Memories: Special or Not So Special?

While Brown and Kulik believed flashbulb memories were exceptional, research paints a different picture. Studies using repeated recall show that these memories change over time, and people may forget details or even misremember where they were or who told them about the event.

For instance, a study on the Challenger space shuttle explosion revealed that participants' memories of where they first heard the news shifted over a few years. This suggest that flashbulb memories are susceptible to influences beyond the original experience, just like regular memories. (Goldstein, 2019)

The Power of Rehearsal and Media

Researcher Ulric Neisser and his team proposed the "narrative rehearsal hypotheses" to explain flashbulb memories. They argue that we rehearse these events through conversations, news reports, and social media, which strengthens the memory but can also introduce inaccuracies (Goldstein, 2019).

Imagine constantly seeing images of the 9/11 attacks on TV. This repetition might make you believe you initially saw the news on TV, even if you didn't.

Researcher James Ost reinforces this idea. Participants were asked if they had seen a video of Princess Diana's car crash, which never existed (Goldstein 2019). The extensive media coverage led some to believe they had seen something unreal.

Flashbulb Memories: A Blend of Vividness and Inaccuracy

Research suggests that flashbulb memories, while vivid and enduring, are not immune to distortion. They share some characteristics with everyday memories, like fading details over time. However, flashbulb memories are more likely to be remembered, even if the details are inaccurate.

The Takeaway: Memories Can Be Reconstructed

Flashbulb memory research highlights human memory's fascinating—and som
etimes frustrating—flexibility. Our memories are not perfect recordings of the past but reconstructions influenced by emotions, rehearsal, and even media portrayals. Understanding this process is crucial for evaluating the accuracy of our memories, especially when dealing with historical events or eyewitness testimonies.

References

Goldstein, B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [Review of Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience]. Cengage.

The Double-Edged Sword of Suggestion: How Police Questioning can taint Eyewitness Memory

 

Imagine a witness peering through a one-way glass at a lineup of suspects. The officer asks, which one of these men did it? This seemingly straightforward question presents a problem. It implies the perpetrator is present, pressuring the witness to choose someone, even if uncertain. A better approach would be to acknowledge that the culprit might not be in the lineup (Goldstein 2019).

From Uncertainty to Conviction: How Feedback Can Alter Memories

Goldstein (2019) asks us to consider this real-life example:

1. A witness hesitantly points to a suspect in a lineup and then wavers over their decision.
2. The officer says-  Okay.
3. Months later, the witness claims absolute certainty about their initial choice at trial.
4. The officers' seeming neutral response may have subtly influenced the withess' memory, transforming a tentative pick into an unshakeable conviction.

The Power of Confirmation: How Feedback Shapes Confidence

In 1998, Wells and Bradfield reinforced this concern with a study (Goldstein 2019):

1. Participants viewed a crime video and then picked a suspect from a photo spread that didn't include the actual perpetrator.
2. Everyone made a choice and then received either confirming feedback ("Good, you identified the suspect"), neutral feedback, or disconfirming feedback.
3. Those who received confirmation were more confident in their incorrect identification.

This phenomenon, called the post-identification feedback effect, creates a significant problem. Juries weigh eyewitness confidence heavily. So, faulty identifications and a confidence boost from police feedback can lead to wrongful convictions.

Protecting Witness Memory: The Need for Precaution

The ease with which memories can be influenced by suggestion highlights the need for caution during witness questioning, and unfortunately, such precautions are not always taken.

Goldstein (2019) tells us that the good news is that steps are being implemented to improve the situation. 

References

Goldstein, B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [Review of Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience]. Cengage.

Memory: More Than Just a Replay Button

 

Believe it or not, our memories are not perfect photographs. They are influenced by what happened and our existing knowledge and understanding of the world. 

Bartlett's War of the Ghosts: Memory Reconstruction

Goldstein (2019) writes about a classic study by Bartlett in 1932:

• Participants read a story from Canadian folklore and were then asked to recall it at various intervals.
• Interestingly, over time, their memories became shorter and contained inaccuracies.
• However, the exciting part was that their memories often reflected their cultural background rather than the story's origin.
• For instance, canoes became boats, and a hesitant participant transformed into a courageous fighter.

Barlett's work highlighted various sources, including our experiences, to fill the gaps and create a coherent narrative.

Making Inferences: Filling in the Blanks

Our memories are also influenced by inferences we make based on our knowledge. Imagine being asked to wait in an office before a psychology experiment. Later, you're asked to recall the office details. You might report seeing bookshelves, even if there weren't any. Why? Because your "office schema" includes books as a common element.

Schemas are mental frameworks for various situations, like banks, restaurants, or classrooms. They help us organize information and make inferences about what might be present, even if we don't see it (Goldstein 2019).

Scripts: The Power of Sequence

Goldstein (2019) tells us that scripts are similar to schemas, but they focus on the sequence of events in a familiar situation:

1. Think of your coffee shop routine: waiting in line, ordering, paying, getting your drink. Scripts can influence memory by creating expectations about what typically happens.

Memory: A Tapestry of Experience

These examples highlight that memory is a complex process. Our experiences, knowledge, and cultural background all weave together to create a unique tapestry of memories. Understanding these influences is crucial for interpreting memories accurately, especially in situations like eyewitness testimony.

References

Goldstein, B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [Review of Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience]. Cengage

Busted by BS! Eyewitness Memory Isn't Always Reliable

What if our memories aren't as reliable as we believe? A recent study/review by Brassil and colleagues (2024) sheds light on a key vulnerability: misinformation.

Here is the surprising truth: memories aren't like recordings. They're more like reconstructions, priced together over time, making them susceptible to being influenced by new information, even if inaccurate (Brassil et al., 2024).

But there is a glimmer of hope! The study also found that more potent cognitive abilities can buffer against misinformation. People with higher general intelligence, reasoning skills, sound perception, and sharp memories are less likely to be warped by misleading information.

Brassil and colleagues  (2024) analyzed nine studies and identified 23 connections between cognitive abilities and how accurately people remember events they witnessed; here are some key cognitive skills that play a role:

1. General Intelligence (especially non-verbal): This includes your ability to solve problems, think abstractly, and understand visual information.
2. Perceptual abilities: How well you see, hear, and process information from your senses can significantly impact how you remember an event. 
3. Working memory capacity is the ability to hold and manipulate information in one's mind for short periods. Stronger working memory helps one filter distractions and focus on the event's details.
4. Autobiographical memory specificity refers to how well you remember the specifics of recent events in your life. The better you can recall the who, what, where, when, and why of a recent experience, the less susceptible you might be to misinformation.

So, how do these cognitive abilities protect eyewitness memory? Brassil and colleagues (2024) suggest three mechanisms:

• Improved source-monitoring: This is the ability to identify where information came from. Distinguishing between what you actually saw and what you heard later helps you avoid incorporating misinformation.
  
  
  
  
• Enhanced discrepancy detection: This involves spotting inconsistencies between different pieces of information. If you have strong discrepancy detection skills, you're more likely to notice when new information clashes with your original memory of the event.
• Better encoding of the original memory: Encoding is the process of memory formation. More robust encoding creates a more detailed and accurate memory representation. This makes it easier to identify inconsistencies with misleading information later on.

The Bottom Line

Eyewitness memory can be a powerful tool, but awareness of its vulnerabilities is essential. Recognizing the influence of misinformation and the role of cognitive abilities can help us improve the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness accounts in legal settings and everyday life.

References

​​Brassil, M., O’Mahony, C., & Greene, C​. (2024). Do Cognitive Abilities Reduce ​Eyewitness Susceptibility to the Misinformation Effect? A Systematic Review [Review​ of Do Cognitive Abilities Reduce Eyewitness Susceptibility to the Misinformation ​Effect? A Systematic Review]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review​. Research Gate. ​https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02512-5

Can Virtual Reality Help Us Understand Eyewitness Testimony?

 Eyewitness testimony is a cornerstone of criminal justice, but it's not always reliable. Witness memory can be surprisingly faulty, influenced by stress and question phrasing. Psychologists are constantly looking for better ways to understand eyewitness experiences, and a new study by Glomb and colleagues (2023) suggests virtual reality (VR) might be a game-changer. 

This study compared how people responded to a crime scene filmed: a traditional video and a VR experience. The researchers found that VR made people feel more immersed and "present" in the scene. They also felt a stronger sense of transportation, as if they were there witnessing the crime.

Here's where Things Get Interesting

Glomb and colleagues (2023) found some interesting results:

VR and Guilt: People who watched the VR scene felt more guilty afterward. The researchers suggest this might be a "vicarious guilt," like they could have somehow stopped the crime.

Screen vs. VR Emotions: Surprisingly, people who watched the video on a screen reported feeling more anger and hatred towards the perpetrators. The researchers offer a few reasons for this. Ma
Focusing on a limited screen view intensified negative emotions, while VR's broader view allowed for more nuanced feelings.

Limitations and the Road Ahead

The study had limitations. The sample size was small, and they couldn't compare VR to a real-life scenario. Still, the findings are promising for using VR to study eyewitness testimony. Here's what the  Glomb and colleagues (2023) propose for future research:

1. VR vs Real Life: Studies comparing VR to real-life situations would strengthen the case for VR's ecological validity (how well it reflects real-world experiences).
2. Bigger Studies, Better Data: More participants would produce more statistically robust results.
3. Capturing Surprise: Using methods that measure surprise could help researchers understand how VR evokes emotional responses.
4. Deeper Dives: Going beyond multiple-choice answers and allowing participants to describe their feelings in their own words would provide richer data on VR's emotional impact.
5. VR and Pleasantness: Investigating if the inherent enjoyment of VR itself affects emotional responses is crucial.

Based on their study's results, Glomb and colleagues (2023) have suggested that VR can revolutionize understanding eyewitness testimony. By creating a more realistic experience, VR could help us improve the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and ultimately strengthen the justice system. As VR technology develops, so will our ability to unlock the secrets of human memory and perception.

References

Glomb, K., Piotrowski, P., & Romanowska, I. (2023). It is not real until it feels real: Testing a new method for simulation of eyewitness experience with virtual reality technology and equipment. Behavior Research Methods. [Review of It is not real until it feels real: Testing a new method for simulation of eyewitness experience with virtual reality technology and equipment. Behavior Research Methods.]. Behavior Research Methods. Research Gate. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02186-2