Testing encoding specificity and the diagnostic feature-detection theory of eyewitness identification, with implications for showups, lineups, and partially disguised perpetrators.

The diagnostic feature-detection theory (DFT) of eyewitness identification is based on facial information that is diagnostic versus non-diagnostic of suspect guilt. It primarily has been tested by discounting non-diagnostic information at retrieval, typically by surrounding a single suspect showup with good fillers to create a lineup. We tested additional DFT predictions by manipulating the presence of facial information (i.e., the exterior region of the face) at both encoding and retrieval with a large between-subjects factorial design (N = 19,414). In support of DFT and in replication of the literature, lineups yielded higher discriminability than showups. In support of encoding specificity, conditions that matched information between encoding and retrieval were generally superior to mismatch conditions. More importantly, we supported several DFT and encoding specificity predictions not previously tested, including that (a) adding non-diagnostic information will reduce discriminability for showups more so than lineups, and (b) removing diagnostic information will lower discriminability for both showups and lineups. These results have implications for police deciding whether to conduct a showup or a lineup, and when dealing with partially disguised perpetrators (e.g., wearing a hoodie).

Never forget a face: Verbalization facilitates recollection as evidenced by flexible responding to contrasting recognition memory tests.

Verbal facilitation occurs when describing a face improves its subsequent recognition; but there are several theoretical explanations debated in the literature. The results of the present studies support a relatively unrestricted, parsimonious theory that verbal facilitation occurs because describing a face supports recollection of several different facets of the face-viewing experience. This recollection is then demonstrated by flexibly responding to two competing types of recognition task demands. Participants studied a list of faces and, following each face, performed a nonverbalization task (Experiment 1) or described its features or traits (Experiment 2). Two subsequent recognition tests included intact faces, new faces, and conjunctions (each of which recombined features of two studied faces). Inclusion test instructions emphasized featural information: respond "yes" to both intact and conjunction faces (both of which contained studied features), but "no" to new faces. Exclusion test instructions emphasized configural information: respond "yes" only to intact faces (which were the only test items that matched studied configurations), and "no" to both conjunctions and new faces. Both yes/no responses and confidence ratings supported our hypothesis that verbalization improved discrimination between (a) conjunctions and new faces in the inclusion test, and (b) intact faces and conjunctions in the exclusion test. Additional secondary responses about face type elucidated that verbalization at study improves the ability to recollect either featural or configural information, depending on which type of response the recognition test required. We discuss these findings about practical applications of improved face memory in real-world contexts.

Lineup fairness: propitious heterogeneity and the diagnostic feature-detection hypothesis.

Researchers have argued that simultaneous lineups should follow the principle of propitious heterogeneity, based on the idea that if the fillers are too similar to the perpetrator even an eyewitness with a good memory could fail to correctly identify him. A similar prediction can be derived from the diagnostic feature-detection (DFD) hypothesis, such that discriminability will decrease if too few features are present that can distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects. Our first experiment tested these predictions by controlling similarity with artificial faces, and our second experiment utilized a more ecologically valid eyewitness identification paradigm. Our results support propitious heterogeneity and the DFD hypothesis by showing that: 1) as the facial features in lineups become increasingly homogenous, empirical discriminability decreases; and 2) lineups with description-matched fillers generally yield higher empirical discriminability than those with suspect-matched fillers.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. METHODS: Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered. RESULTS: This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Update review of the safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has continued to evolve with the availability of data from clinical trial programs, post-marketing pharmacovigilance and dedicated cardiovascular outcome trials. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the safety issues associated with the SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, particularly the newer/emergent safety data related to US Food and Drug Administration statements regarding these three agents. EXPERT OPINION: The safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors is well defined, and the adverse event profile is largely consistent with their mechanism of action. These well-recognized events include genital mycotic infections and volume-associated adverse events. Serious safety issues detected more recently with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, such as bone fractures, pyelonephritis, urosepsis, and ketoacidosis, have been uncommon. A robust improvement in cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was recently demonstrated with empagliflozin. Given the glucose-lowering efficacy, low risk of hypoglycemia, and other benefits associated with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, this class of oral glucose-lowering medication is a valuable addition to treatment options for T2DM, and may play an increasingly prominent therapeutic role as emerging data are revealed.

Searching for the sequential line-up advantage: a distinctiveness explanation.

Gronlund ( 2005 ) proposed that one factor leading to a sequential line-up advantage could be the greater likelihood of recollecting distinctive information about a perpetrator when using a sequential line-up. Since then questions have been raised about the robustness of the sequential advantage and the possible moderating role of line-up fairness and suspect position. We manipulated these factors as well as suspect/target distinctiveness in two experiments. A sequential advantage occurred only after encoding a distinctive target, both for biased line-ups (Experiment 1) and fair line-ups (Experiment 2). Remember-Know results were consistent with the greater use of a recall-to-reject strategy in target-absent sequential line-ups. This provided support for the first process-based explanation of the sequential line-up advantage. No consistent position effects were found, but this might be due to the line-up recognition paradigm used, in which each participant viewed a line-up for each of several targets. Theory-based explorations of eyewitness identification are necessary to continue to delineate the underpinnings of the sequential line-up advantage.

Exploring the sequential lineup advantage using WITNESS.

Advocates claim that the sequential lineup is an improvement over simultaneous lineup procedures, but no formal (quantitatively specified) explanation exists for why it is better. The computational model WITNESS (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629-654, 2003) was used to develop theoretical explanations for the sequential lineup advantage. In its current form, WITNESS produced a sequential advantage only by pairing conservative sequential choosing with liberal simultaneous choosing. However, this combination failed to approximate four extant experiments that exhibited large sequential advantages. Two of these experiments became the focus of our efforts because the data were uncontaminated by likely suspect position effects. Decision-based and memory-based modifications to WITNESS approximated the data and produced a sequential advantage. The next step is to evaluate the proposed explanations and modify public policy recommendations accordingly.

Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage.

A growing movement in the United States and around the world involves promoting the advantages of conducting an eyewitness lineup in a sequential manner. We conducted a large study (N = 2,529) that included 24 comparisons of sequential versus simultaneous lineups. A liberal statistical criterion revealed only 2 significant sequential lineup advantages and 3 significant simultaneous advantages. Both sequential advantages occurred when the good photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the fifth position in the sequential lineup; all 3 simultaneous advantages occurred when the poorer quality photograph of the guilty suspect or either innocent suspect was in the second position. Adjusting the statistical criterion to control for the multiple tests (.05/24) revealed no significant sequential advantages. Moreover, despite finding more conservative overall choosing for the sequential lineup, no support was found for the proposal that a sequential advantage was due to that conservative criterion shift. Unless lineups with particular characteristics predominate in the real world, there appears to be no strong preference for conducting lineups in either a sequential or a simultaneous manner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage.

N. M. Steblay, J. Dysart, S. Fulero, and R. C. L. Lindsay (2001) argued that sequential lineups reduce the likelihood of mistaken eyewitness identification. Experiment 1 replicated the design of R. C. L. Lindsay and G. L. Wells (1985), the first study to show the sequential lineup advantage. However, the innocent suspect was chosen at a lower rate in the simultaneous lineup, and no sequential lineup advantage was found. This led the authors to hypothesize that protection from a sequential lineup might emerge only when an innocent suspect stands out from the other lineup members. In Experiment 2, participants viewed a simultaneous or sequential lineup with either the guilty suspect or 1 of 3 innocent suspects. Lineup fairness was varied to influence the degree to which a suspect stood out. A sequential lineup advantage was found only for the unfair lineups. Additional analyses of suspect position in the sequential lineups showed an increase in the diagnosticity of suspect identifications as the suspect was placed later in the sequential lineup. These results suggest that the sequential lineup advantage is dependent on lineup composition and suspect position.

Aging and visual search: automatic and controlled attentional bias to threat faces.

Using a visual search paradigm, we investigated how age affected attentional bias to emotional facial expressions. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants searched for a discrepant facial expression in a matrix of otherwise homogeneous faces. Both younger and older adults showed a more effective search when the discrepant face was angry rather than happy or neutral. However, when the angry faces served as non-target distractors, younger adults' search was less effective than happy or neutral distractor conditions. In contrast, older adults showed a more efficient search with angry distractors than happy or neutral distractors, indicating that older adults were better able to inhibit angry facial expressions. In Experiment 3, we found that even a top-down search goal could not override the angry face superiority effect in guiding attention. In addition, RT distribution analyses supported that both younger and older adults performed the top-down angry face search qualitatively differently from the top-down happy face search. The current research indicates that threat face processing involves automatic attentional shift and a controlled attentional process. The current results suggest that age only influenced the controlled attentional process.