For instance, would one either feel anomalies within a split second or never at all, or would anomaly detection improve as one accrues more haptic evidence over time? Additionally, we do not yet know how these factors are influenced by expertise. We additionally do not know how much time is needed to ensure that the exploitation of these senses prompts at least a decent detection performance. In particular, we know little of the respective contribution of visual and haptic perception in the decision-making process. 1).Īs of yet, we do not have complete knowledge of the factors contributing to counterfeit detectability.
These authentication features appeal to two of our five senses, namely sight and touch (see Fig. Examples are a watermark, a security thread that is imbedded in the paper, optically changing elements, security foils (sometimes including holograms), paper structure and alto-relievo induced by intaglio printing (raised ink). For these reasons, all central banks incorporate various security features in their banknotes to assist various user groups in identifying counterfeits without specialized equipment. The relatively high levels of trust exhibited by the general public fuel the need for banknotes of which the authenticity can be easily confirmed – which, in consequence, should boost one’s ability to detect deviants beyond the limits imposed by naïveté. ( 2019), 70% of a sample of Dutch respondents claimed to have never intentionally and consciously authenticated a banknote in the last 5 years. Mainly because of this, people tend to not authenticate banknotes, especially when, at first glance, the banknote appears normal (Van der Horst et al., 2017). For example, in Europe in 2018, the number of counterfeit euro banknotes that were removed from circulation (563,000) constituted only 0.003% of the number of genuine euro banknotes in circulation (22 billion) (European Central Bank (ECB), 2019). Research has shown that Dutch citizens have strong confidence in the authenticity of euro banknotes because the likelihood of receiving a counterfeit is very low (Van der Horst, De Heij, Miedema, & Van der Woude, 2017). Determining whether the banknote is fake or real is regarded as less important (Klöne, Vrakking, & Zondervan, 2019). Upon receiving a banknote – either from a retailer or in a person-to-person transaction – people typically prioritize determining its value. These cash transactions were largely habitual (Van der Horst & Matthijsen, 2013). In 2016, consumers in the euro area made on average 1.2 cash payments per day (Esselink & Hernandez, 2017). Implications for the design of security features of new banknotes are discussed. The main finding of the current study is that visual information mostly impacts the decision-making process during the first glance, whereas tactile information increasingly aids performance as it continues to be accrued over time. In Experiment 2, participants could both see and touch the banknotes, which resulted in better performance especially with longer exposure durations. Non-experts did not reach the criterion for decent performance, marked by d’ = 1.25, although they did perform above chance. Experiment 1, in which participants only viewed the banknotes, showed that experts did reasonably well in detecting counterfeits even when exposure duration was limited to 500 ms. The counterfeit banknotes were actual counterfeits taken out of circulation.
We varied exposure duration and perceptual modality (sight, touch or both). In two field experiments, we tested central bank counterfeit experts and non-experts (the general public) in their ability to detect counterfeited euro banknotes.
BANK NOTE CHECKER PROFESSIONAL
Central banks incorporate various security features in their banknotes to enable themselves, the general public, retailers and professional cash handlers to detect counterfeits.
0 kommentar(er)
