The Effect of Pre-Event Instructions on Eyewitness Identification

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of the event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may affect eyewitness identification performance. In the current experiment, we tested the impact of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants received non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this video”) or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., “watch this crime video, you’ll complete a lineup later”) and completed a culprit-absent or -present lineup. We found no support for the hypothesis that participants who receive eyewitness pre-event instructions have higher discriminability than participants who receive non-specific pre-event instructions. Additionally, confidence-accuracy calibration was not significantly different between conditions. However, participants in the eyewitness condition were more likely to see the event as a crime and to make an identification than participants in the non-specific condition. Implications for conducting and interpreting eyewitness identification research and the basic research on instructions and attention are discussed

The impact of loupes and microscopes on vision in endodontics.

AIM To report on an intraradicular visual test in a simulated clinical setting under different optical conditions. METHODOLOGY Miniaturized visual tests with E-optotypes (bar distance from 0.01 to 0.05 mm) were fixed inside the root canal system of an extracted maxillary molar at different locations: at the orifice, a depth of 5 mm and the apex. The tooth was mounted in a phantom head for a simulated clinical setting. Unaided vision was compared with Galilean loupes (2.5× magnification) with integrated light source and an operating microscope (6× magnification). The influence of the dentists' age within two groups was evaluated: <40 years (n = 9) and ≥40 years (n = 15). RESULTS Some younger dentists were able to identify the E-optotypes at the orifice, but otherwise, natural vision did not reveal any measurable result. With Galilean loupes, the younger dentists <40 years could see a 0.05 mm structure at the root canal orifice, in contrast to the older group ≥40 years. Only the microscope allowed the observation of structures inside the root canal, independent of age. CONCLUSION Unaided vision and Galilean loupes with an integrated light source could not provide any measurable vision inside the root canal, but younger dentists <40 years could detect with Galilean loupes a canal orifice corresponding to the tip of the smallest endodontic instruments. Dentists over 40 years of age were dependent on the microscope to inspect the root canal system