Złożoność podpisów autentycznych i fałszywych: mit czy rzeczywistość?
Wybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEData publikacji: 01.09.2025
Problems of Forensic Sciences (Z Zagadnień Nauk Sądowych), 2025, 141, s. 53-73
https://doi.org/10.4467/12307483PFS.25.003.22205Autorzy
Complexity in genuine signatures versus forged signatures: myth or reality
Handwriting is a complex neuromuscular activity, with writing complexity being one of the key features impacting the ease of imitation. Generally, higher complexity signatures are more difficult to replicate without revealing signs of simulation. However, some low-complexity signatures can be harder to simulate, suggesting unexplored factors influencing complexity. This study aimed to differentiate between genuine and simulated pen-paper signatures across various styles by examining handwriting characteristics, including absolute size, slant, lateral expansion, and the number of pen lifts. Signature complexity is often believed to correlate with forgery difficulty, yet existing literature presents conflicting evidence. By analyzing different signature styles and their characteristics, this study sought to enhance understanding of the factors influencing signature imitation. Findings confirmed that pen lifts are not significant indicators for distinguishing between genuine and simulated signatures in text-based and non-complex stylized categories. Complexity features, such as the number of turning points and line intersections, provided more reliable differentiation. Higher complexity scores were associated with genuine signatures, while simulated signatures typically exhibited fewer turning points and intersections. This study indicated a potential for further research to uncover additional factors affecting signature complexity and imitation, ultimately contributing to more effective forensic examination practices.
1. Saudek R. Experiments with handwriting. Sacramento, CA: Books For Professionals; 1978.
2. Harralson HH, Miller LS. Huber and Headrick’s handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. CRC Press; 2018. p. 67, 76, 99, 103.
3. Harrison WR. Suspect documents: their scientific examination. Nelson-Hall Publishers; 1981. p. 288, 291, 295, 311, 315, 342.
4. Osborn AS. Questioned documents. 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co; 1929. p. 169-170.
5. Merriam-Webster. Signature 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signature
6. Conway J. Evidential documents. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas; 1959. p. 12-13.
7. Mohammed L, Found BJ, Rogers DK. Frequency of signature styles in San Diego County.Journal of the American society of questioned document examiners. 2008 Jun 1;11(1).
9. M erriam-Webster. Complex. 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complex
10. Pelli DG, Burns CW, Farell B, Moore-Page DC. Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Res. 2006;46(28):4646-4674.
11. Brault JJ, Plamondon R. A complexity measure of handwritten curves: modeling of dynamic signature forgery. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1993;23(2):400-413.
12. Found B, Rogers D. A consideration of the theoretical basis of handwriting examination: the application of “complexity theory” to understand the basis of handwriting identification. Int J Forensic Doc Examiners. 1998;4:109-118.
13. Angel M, Kelly JS, editors. Forensic document examination in the 21st century. CRC Press; 2020. p. 111-118.
14. Fairhurst MC, Kaplani E, Guest RM. Complexity measures in handwritten signature verification. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI); 2001. p. 305-309.
15. Allen M. Foundations of forensic document analysis: theory and practice. Wiley Blackwell; 2016. p. 68.
16. Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. Are expert penmen better than lay people at producing simulations of a model signature? Forensic Sci Int. 2008;180(1):50-53.
17. Foote C. Auto-simulation: a study of self-forgery versus disguise. Paper presented at: Fall conference of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners; Breckenridge, Colorado; 1998.
18. Alewijnse LC, van den Heuvel CE, Stoel RD. Analysis of signature complexity. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2011;21:37-49.
19. Pepe A, Rogers DK, Sita JC. A cognitive look into simulations of high and low complexity signatures. In: Advances in graphonomics. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the International Graphonomics Society. Mexico; 2011. p. 136-139.
20. Pepe A, Rogers D, Sita J. A consideration of signature complexity using simulators’ gaze behavior. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2012;22:5-13.
21. Scurich N, Angel M, Stern H, Thompson WC. How signature complexity affects expert and lay ability to distinguishgenuine, disguised, and simulated signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 69(6), 2159-2170.
23. Angel M, Caligiuri M, Cavanaugh M. Kinematic models of subjective complexity in handwritten signatures. J Am Soc Quest Doct Exam. 2017:20(2):3-10.
24. Hilton O. Scientific examination of questioned documents. CRC Press; 1992. p. 20.
25. Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. The relationship between quantitatively modeled signature complexity levels and forensic document examiners’ qualitative opinions on casework. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2007;18:21-40.
26. Dewhurst TN, Ballantyne KN, Found B. Exploring the significance of pen lifts as predictors of signature simulation behavior. J Am Soc Questioned Doc Examin. 2015;18(2):3-15.
27. Mohammed LA. Forensic examination of signatures. Academic Press; 2019. p. 50-60.
28. Sita JC, Rogers D, Found B. A model using complexity, spatial score, and line quality for forensic signature comparison. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Graphonomics Society. Scottsdale, Arizona; 2003. p. 257-260.
29. Kent State University Libraries. (n.d.). One-Sample t-Test: SPSS tutorials. Kent State University. https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/OneSampletTest
30. Ross A, Willson VL. Basic and advanced statistical tests: writing results sections and creating tables and figures. Springer; 2018.
Informacje: Problems of Forensic Sciences (Z Zagadnień Nauk Sądowych), 2025, 141, s. 53-73
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Forensic Science Department,
Chandigarh University
Indie
Forensic Science Department,
Chandigarh University
Indie
Forensic Science Department,
RIMT University
Indie
Publikacja: 01.09.2025
Otrzymano: 15.01.2025
Zaakceptowano: 25.06.2025
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2178
Liczba pobrań: 602