Investigating individual learning behaviour of dogs during a yes/no detection task.

Detection dogs are frequently tested for their ability to detect a variety of targets. It is crucial to comprehend the processes for odour learning and the consequences of training on an expanding set of target scents on performance. To properly evaluate their ability to identify the target, the only true measure is the dogs' initial response to novel sources, since this excludes learning effects. In this study, we evaluated the individual learning processes of three detection dogs that were pre-trained to differentially respond to a faecal sample of a mare in oestrus (S+) and a faecal sample of the same mare in di-oestrus (S-). After reaching criterion during a test with known training samples, the dogs were tested for generalization to a novel source. Average responses to S+ and S- were calculated as a function of presentation sequence, and Signal Detection Theory was used to further analyse characteristic differences in learning. The results of this study suggest that the ability of individual scent detection dogs to learn within an olfactory discrimination test varies considerably. The information obtained in this study could be helpful for mitigation training. We show that through careful monitoring of individual learning processes, the strategy each dog followed becomes apparent: especially the observations on the dogs' responses to first encounters with novel sample sources. This provides us with more detailed information than the more traditional sensitivity and specificity measures and allows us to better predict the dog's capabilities.

The use of crime scene detection dogs to locate semen stains on different types of fabric.

In sexual assault cases, the detection and identification of semen is extremely important as this type of evidence can be used as a source for investigative leads and contributes to case evidence. However, the detection of semen stains is often difficult, even indoors, because of different (environmental) factors, such as substrate type, coloured items and large search areas. In 2015, a project was initiated by the Dutch police to evaluate the feasibility of the use of detection dogs to locate semen stains in forensic practise. Since promising results were obtained, here, a double-blind study was designed to investigate how these detection dogs can optimally be implemented in the current work flow of crime scene investigators and to compare the dog's sensitivity and specificity with current detection methods. The performance of the detection dogs was compared to three commonly used detection methods for semen, (i) forensic light sources (FLS), (ii) the RSID semen field kit and (iii) the enzymatic Acid Phosphatase (AP)-test on semen deposited at different types of fabrics. A 100% sensitivity and specificity for the detection of semen stains using the detection dogs was obtained, compared to an overall sensitivity and specificity of 76.3% and 100% for FLS, 81.6% and 100% for RSID-test, and 92.1% and 100% for AP-test, respectively. Especially, on fabrics with a pattern or interfering fluorescent properties, detection dogs demonstrated to be of additional value to locate the semen stains. We recommend to use the following order of testing, FLS, detection dog, AP-test and RSID test in a forensic workflow.

Scent lineups compared across eleven countries: Looking for the future of a controversial forensic technique.

A scent lineup is generally a procedure whereby a dog's alerting behavior is used to establish that the dog detects two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, as deriving from the same person. The aim of this article is to compare methodologies of using dogs in scent lineups as a means of identifying perpetrators of crimes. It is hoped that this comparative approach, looking at countries where the method is currently or has in the past been used, will help determine what issues should be addressed in order to assure that the scent lineup will have a future as a forensic technique. Participants from eleven countries-Belgium, The Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, and the U.S.-completed a survey questionnaire regarding key aspects of the scent lineup procedures used by the police in their countries. Although there was broad overlap on certain matters, such as the use of control and zero trials, collection of decoy scents from individuals of similar gender and race as the suspect, materials for holding scent, frequency of cleaning and changing stations, and use and timing of rewards, there were significant differences in the degree of blindness required, who calls an alert (handler or experimenter), and whether handlers can work with more than one dog. The gap between recommendations and results available from the scientific literature and procedures used in police practice was greater for some countries than others, even taking into account that some scientific methodologies might be expensive or impractical given agency resources. The authors make recommendations about how to go forward if scent lineups are to remain a valid forensic technique.

The frequency of occurrence and discriminatory power of compounds found in human scent across a population determined by SPME-GC/MS.

The composition of human scent collected from the hands is of interest to the medical community as a mechanism to diagnose disease and the forensic community as a means to investigate canine scent discriminations. An extensive survey of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified in the headspace of hand odor samples utilizing solid phase micro-extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SPME-GC/MS) has been conducted to determine the constituents of the human base odor profile. Sixty-three compounds were extracted from the collected odor samples. The composition included acids, alcohols, aldehydes, hydrocarbons, esters, ketones and nitrogen-containing compounds. The majority of the compounds detected (79.4%) were present in less than one third of the individuals sampled. Spearman correlation coefficient comparisons at a match/no-match threshold of 0.9 produced a distinguish ability of 99.67% across the population.