These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
22. Lineup administrators' expectations: their impact on eyewitness confidence. Garrioch L; Brimacombe CA Law Hum Behav; 2001 Jun; 25(3):299-315. PubMed ID: 11480805 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Steblay NK; Dietrich HL; Ryan SL; Raczynski JL; James KA Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):262-74. PubMed ID: 20632113 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect. Dysart JE; Lawson VZ; Rainey A Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):312-9. PubMed ID: 22849416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Brewer N; Caon A; Todd C; Weber N Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):31-50. PubMed ID: 16729207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: computer-based lineup administration. MacLin OH; Zimmerman LA; Malpass RS Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):303-21. PubMed ID: 15965630 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The effect of post-identification feedback, delay, and suspicion on accurate eyewitnesses. Quinlivan DS; Neuschatz JS; Douglass AB; Wells GL; Wetmore SA Law Hum Behav; 2012 Jun; 36(3):206-14. PubMed ID: 22667810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials. Mansour JK; Beaudry JL; Lindsay RCL Behav Res Methods; 2017 Dec; 49(6):2235-2254. PubMed ID: 28432569 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: a field study. Horry R; Memon A; Wright DB; Milne R Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 22849411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications. Charman SD; Quiroz V Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):477-87. PubMed ID: 27227276 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Eyewitness identification accuracy: a comparison of adults with and those without intellectual disabilities. Ericson K; Isaacs B Ment Retard; 2003 Jun; 41(3):161-73. PubMed ID: 12737610 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Memon A; Hope L; Bull R Br J Psychol; 2003 Aug; 94(Pt 3):339-54. PubMed ID: 14511547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Fast and confident: postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. Sauerland M; Sporer SL J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):46-62. PubMed ID: 19309216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Sauer J; Brewer N; Zweck T; Weber N Law Hum Behav; 2010 Aug; 34(4):337-47. PubMed ID: 19626432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Regularities in eyewitness identification. Clark SE; Howell RT; Davey SL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):187-218. PubMed ID: 17410411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception. Lefebvre CD; Marchand Y; Smith SM; Connolly JF Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Sep; 73(3):218-25. PubMed ID: 19303425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. Charman SD; Wells GL J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Mar; 14(1):5-20. PubMed ID: 18377163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]