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.
24. What we know now: the Evanston Illinois field lineups. Steblay NK Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 20177754 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):194-212. PubMed ID: 18600436 [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 impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Wright DB Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
30. Children's identification of faces from lineups: the effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Beresford J; Blades M J Appl Psychol; 2006 Sep; 91(5):1102-13. PubMed ID: 16953771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: a reality monitoring analysis. Behrman BW; Richards RE Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):279-301. PubMed ID: 15965629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Flowe HD; Ebbesen EB Law Hum Behav; 2007 Feb; 31(1):33-52. PubMed ID: 17123159 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. The effect of visual task difficulty and attentional direction on the detection of acoustic change as indexed by the Mismatch Negativity. Muller-Gass A; Stelmack RM; Campbell KB Brain Res; 2006 Mar; 1078(1):112-30. PubMed ID: 16497283 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Investigating investigators: how presentation order influences participant-investigators' interpretations of eyewitness identification and alibi evidence. Dahl LC; Brimacombe CA; Lindsay DS Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):368-80. PubMed ID: 18810615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Identification accuracy for single- and double-perpetrator crimes: does accomplice gender matter? Megreya AM; Bindemann M Br J Psychol; 2012 Nov; 103(4):439-53. PubMed ID: 23034106 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]