ColeS. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 985–1078.
2.
DrorI. E.MnookinJ. L. (2010). The use of technology in human expert domains: Challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law, Probability & Risk, 9, 47–67.
3.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1984). The science of fingerprints: Classification and uses. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
LoftusE. F.ColeS. A. (2004). Contaminated evidence. Science, 304, 959.
6.
National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
7.
SaksM. J.KoehlerJ. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895.
8.
SpinneyL. (2010). The fine print. Nature, 464, 344–346.
9.
VokeyJ. R.TangenJ. M.ColeS. A. (2009). On the preliminary psychophysics of fingerprint identification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1023–1040.