Eyewitness Identification Accuracy: The Influence of Olfactory Stimuli Used as a Form of Context Reinstatement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of olfactory stimuli used as a form of context reinstatement on eyewitness identification and recall accuracy.Participants (N = 184) attended two sessions.In the first session, participants viewed a video of a staged, non-violent theft and then completed the free recall form.Participants returned for the second session one week later where they again completed the free recall form and the lineup task.In each session, participants were randomly assigned to either the scent or no scent condition.It was hypothesized that a match in scent at both sessions would result in the most accurate identification decisions.A trend was found for a higher correct identification rate and a higher correct rejection rate when encoding and retrieval sessions matched versus mismatched.Scent did not influence the number of descriptors or proportion of accurate descriptors recalled.Overall, the results from the current study suggest that scent may have a minimal influence on eyewitness accuracy when used as a form of context reinstatement.Implications and future directions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".