The current study explores the shifts in processing observed at the time of encoding a crime and later recognition of the perpetrator. Processing theory states that at the time of encoding an eyewitness indulges in configural processing (holistic perspective) whereas during subsequent recognition of the suspect, eyewitnesses focus on distinct elements of the face (featural perspective). This shift in processing is observed to cause errors during the recognition task.
To enhance witness credibility, the present study aimed to analyze the accuracy of eyewitness recognition by combining brain–computer interface (BCI) technologies like electroencephalogram (EEG) with eye-tracking analysis. The current experimental design assessed the effect of written recall and retention interval (immediate or 24 hours) on perpetrator recognition accuracy (correct identification i.e., HITS and false rejection i.e., false alarm). Twenty (18–25 years) participants witnessed a simulated crime scenario followed by random selection of participants into one of the two groups based on retention interval. Groups 1 and 2 were administered the recognition task immediately and after 24 hours, respectively, after the written recall task. Recognition was assessed via a five-person sequential target-present lineup. Recognition accuracy was assessed and confirmed through the application of BCI-based EEG (Emotiv Epoc X, version 4.2.1.542), combined with eye-tracking analysis (Gazepoint’s (GP3) Eye Tracker). At the end of experiment, written recall accuracy (number of core and peripheral details), lineup recognition accuracy (HITS and false alarms), event-related potential data, and eye-tracking data were collected and analyzed.
The results of the study indicate that for 50% of the total participants in group 1 obtained higher number of core details, a higher frequency selected the culprit (HITS), and a clear P300 epoch, indicating high recall accuracy, and recognition accuracy respectively. Interestingly, the same participant evidenced eye movements tied to the crime video. For group 2, results indicate a higher number of core detail, a higher frequency of HITS, and an elevated P300 epoch, indicating accurate recognition and higher average of the eye movement parameters but only for 30% of the total participants. Thus, it was concluded that, increase in retention interval affects the recognition and recall accuracy. The article concludes with a discussion of the study’s limitations and future directions.