Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a global priority. Rapid and ongoing technological advancements in AI have prompted European legislative initiatives to regulate its use. In April 2021, the European Commission submitted a proposal for a Regulation that would harmonize artificial intelligence rules across the EU, including the law enforcement sector. Consequently, law enforcement officials await the outcome of the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations (trilogue) with great anticipation, as it will define how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by AI and how to prevent criminals from abusing this emergent technology.

Previous work looking at individual differences in face identity processing (FIP) has found that most commonly used lab-based performance assessments are unfortunately not sufficiently sensitive on their own for measuring performance in both the upper and lower tails of the general population simultaneously. So more recently, researchers have begun incorporating multiple testing procedures into their assessments. Still, though, the growing consensus seems to be that at the individual level, there is quite a bit of variability between test scores. The overall consequence of this is that extreme scores will still occur simply by chance in large enough samples. To mitigate this issue, our recent work has developed measures of intra-individual FIP consistency to refine selection of those with superior abilities (i.e. from the upper tail). For starters, we assessed consistency of face matching and recognition in neurotypical controls, and compared them to a sample of SRs. In terms of face matching, we demonstrated psychophysically that SRs show significantly greater consistency than controls in exploiting spatial frequency information than controls. Meanwhile, we showed that SRs’ recognition of faces is highly related to memorability for identities, yet effectively unrelated among controls. So overall, at the high end of the FIP spectrum, consistency can be a useful tool for revealing both qualitative and quantitative individual differences. Finally, in conjunction with collaborators from the Rheinland-Pfalz Police, we developed a pair of bespoke work samples to get bias-free measures of intraindividual consistency in current law enforcement personnel. Officers with higher composite scores on a set of 3 challenging FIP tests tended to show higher consistency, and vice versa. Overall, this suggests that not only is consistency a reasonably good marker of superior FIP abilities, but could present important practical benefits for personnel selection in many other domains of expertise.

Deciding whether two different face photographs or voice samples are from the same person represent fundamental challenges within applied settings. To date, most research has focussed on average performance in these tests, failing to consider individual differences and within-person consistency in responses. In the current studies, participants completed the same face or voice matching test on two separate occasions, allowing comparison of overall accuracy across the two timepoints as well as consistency in trial-level responses. In both experiments, participants were highly consistent in their performances. In addition, we demonstrated a large association between consistency and accuracy, with the most accurate participants also tending to be the most consistent. This is an important result for applied settings in which organisational groups of super-matchers are deployed in real-world contexts. Being able to reliably identify these high performers based upon only a single test informs regarding recruitment for law enforcement agencies worldwide.