Reports an error in "The distance threshold of reliable eyewitness identification" by Thomas J. Nyman, James Michael Lampinen, Jan Antfolk, Julia Korkman and Pekka Santtila (Law and Human Behavior, 2019[Dec], Vol 43[6], 527-541). In the article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000342), the authors incorrectly referred to "simple main" effects as "main effects" in four places on pp. 532-533. The authors have created a document reporting the main and simple main effects based on the original multilevel logistic regressions. These analyses support the authors' original interpretations and conclusions and can be found in the online supplemental materials. The online version of this article and online supplementary material have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-38765-001.) Increased distance between an eyewitness and a culprit decreases the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, but the maximum distance at which reliable observations can still be made is unknown. Our aim was to identify this threshold. We hypothesized that increased distance would decrease identification, rejection accuracy, confidence and would increase response time. We expected an interaction effect, where increased distance would more negatively affect younger and older participants (vs. young adults), resulting in age-group specific distance thresholds where diagnosticity would be 1. We presented participants with 4 live targets at distances between 5 m and 110 m using an 8-person computerized line-up task. We used simultaneous and sequential target-absent or target-present line-ups and presented these to 1,588 participants (age range = 6-77; 61% female; 95% Finns), resulting in 6,233 responses. We found that at 40 m diagnosticity was 50% lower than at 5 m and with increased distance diagnosticity tapered off until it was 1 (±0.5) at 100 m for all age groups and line-up types. However, young children (age range = 6-11) and older adults (age range = 45-77) reached a diagnosticity of 1 at shorter distances compared with older children (age range = 12-17) and young adults (age range = 18-44). We found that confidence dropped with increased distance, response time remained stable, and high confidence and shorter response times were associated with identification accuracy up to 40 m. We conclude that age and line-up type moderate the effect distance has on eyewitness accuracy and that there are perceptual distance thresholds at which an eyewitness can no longer reliably encode and later identify a culprit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“可靠的目击者识别的距离阈值”：对Nyman等人的更正。（2019）。

报告了Thomas J. Nyman，James Michael Lampinen，Jan Antfolk，Julia Korkman和Pekka Santtila撰写的“可靠的目击者识别的距离阈值”中的一个错误（法律与人类行为，2019年12月，第43卷[6]，527- 541）。在文章（http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000342）中，作者在第532-533页的四个地方错误地将“简单主要”效果称为“主要效果”。作者创建了一个文档，该文档基于原始的多级逻辑回归分析报告了主要和简单的主要效果。这些分析支持作者的原始解释和结论，并且可以在在线补充材料中找到。本文的在线版本和在线补充材料已得到更正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2019-38765-001中。）目击者和罪魁祸首之间的距离增加会降低目击者识别的准确性，但是仍可以进行可靠观察的最大距离是未知的。我们的目标是确定此阈值。我们假设增加的距离会降低识别率，拒绝精度，置信度并会增加响应时间。我们预期会产生交互作用，距离增加对年轻人和老年人（对年轻人）的负面影响更大，从而导致特定年龄段的距离阈值（诊断为1）。我们为参与者提供了4个真实目标，距离在5 m和110 m（使用8人计算机排队任务）。我们使用了同时和连续的目标缺失或目标存在的阵容，并向1588名参与者（年龄范围为6-77；女性为61％；芬兰人为95％）展示了这些，从而产生了6,233项响应。我们发现40 m时的诊断率比5 m时低50％，并且随着距离的增加，诊断率逐渐下降，直到所有年龄段和阵容类型的100 m时的诊断率为1（±0.5）。但是，与年龄较大的儿童（年龄范围= 12-17）和年轻人（年龄范围= 18-44）。我们发现，置信度随着距离的增加而下降，响应时间保持稳定，而高置信度和较短的响应时间与高达40 m的识别精度相关。我们得出结论，年龄和阵容类型适度影响距离对目击者准确性的影响，并且存在感知距离阈值，在该阈值下目击者无法再可靠地编码并随后识别出罪魁祸首。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。