Home > Article > Latent Print Examination and Human Factors Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Latent Print Examination and Human Factors Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Latent print examination andHuman Factors: Improvingthe Practice through a SystemsApproachThe report of the Expert Working group orHuman Factors in Latent Print analysisIn mehis report is dedicated to the memory of Danny Greathouse, a valuedcontributor to this study and a friend who will be missed

Contributors to This reportThe Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print AnalysisThe Working Group relied upon the contributions of many individuals The opinions presenteder the course of the Working Group's deliberation reflect personal experiences and researchws in this report do not express the official positionsinstitutions with wmembers aDavid H Kaye, JD, MS, (Editor in Chief) Distinguished Professor and Weiss Family ScholarDickinson School of Law and Graduate Faculty Member, Forensic Science Program, EberlyCollege of Science, Pennsylvania State Universityhomas Busey, PhD,(Editorial Committee) Professor, Department of Psyched brainMelissa R Gische, MFS,Editorial Committee) Physical Scientist/Forensic Examiner, LatentPrint Operations Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation LaboratorGerry LaPorte, (Editorial Committee) Forensic Policy Program Manager, National Institute ofColin Aitken, PhD, Professor of Forensic Statistics, School of Mathematics University ofedinburghSusan Ballou, MS, Law Enforcement Standards Office, National Institute of Standards andLeonard Butt, Chair, Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study andChristophe Champod, PhD, Professor, Institut de Police Scientifique, Ecole des SciencesCriminelles Universite de lausanneDavid Charlton, phD Surrey and sussex police forensic services UKItiel E Dror, PhD, University College London and Cognitive Consultants InternationalJules epsteinAssociate PreLaw, Widener University School of LiRobert garrett Past president and chairman of the board

International association fodentificationMax M Houck, PhD, Co-Chair and Principal Analyst, AnseEdward J Imwinkelried, JD, Edward L, Barrett Jr Professor of law, Director of trialAdvocacy, University of California, Davisalph Keaton, Executive Director, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/ LaboratoryGlenn Langenburg, MS, Forensic Scientist, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal ApprehensiDeborah A Leben, MS, Lead Fingerprint Specialist, United States Secret Service, DepartmentAlice Maceo, Forensic Lab Manager, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ForensKenneth f Martin Detective lieutenant (retired) Crime scene services sectionassachusetts statJennifer L Mnookin, JD, PhD, Professor of Law, University of Califonia, Los AngLatent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

CNeumann, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics and Forensic Sciencegram, Eberly College of Science, Pennsylvania State UniversityJoe Polski Forensics Committee Member International Association of Chiefs of policeMaria Antonia Roberts, MS, Research Program Manager, Latent Print Support Unit, FederaBureau of Investigation Laboratorycott A Shappell, PhD, Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson UniversityLyle shaver Forensic scientist supervisor viDepartment of fargur N Srihari, PhD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Computer Science andEngineering, State University of New York at buffaloHal S

Stern, PhD, Professor, Department of Statistics, University of California, IrvineDavid Stoney, PhD, Chief Scientist, Stoney Forensic, IncAnjali Swienton, MFS, JD, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse for Scienceechnology and the Law (NCStl), Stetson University College of LawMary Theofanos, MS, Computer Scientist, Information Access Division, Informationoratory, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyRobert m Thompson, Program Manager, Forensic Data Systems, Law Enforcement StandardsOffice, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyJohn Vanderkolk, Laboratory Manager, Indiana State Police LaboratoryMaria Weir, MA, Supervising Forensic Identification Specialist, Los Angeles County SheriffsDepartmentKasey Wertheim, MBA, Co-Chair, President, and CEO, Complete Consultants Worldwide, LLCMelissa Taylor, Study Director, Law Enforcement Standards Office, National Institute ofStandards and TechnoloMark d Stolorow Director Law Enforcement standards office National institute of standardsnd techiJennifer L Smither, Lead Editor, Science Applications International CorporationKathi E Hanna, PhD, Consultant Writer and EditorShannan Williams, MPP, Program Assistant, Booz Allen HamiltonacknowledgementsThe Working Group gratefully acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions tos documentBruce Budowle, PhD, Executive Director, Institute of Applied Genetics, Professor, Departmentf Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science CenterMike Campbell, Training Coordinator, Ron Smith and Associates, IncYee-Yin Choong, PhD, Industrial Engineer, Information Technology Laboratory, NationalInstitute of Standards and TechnologySarah Chu, Innocence Projectintroductio

Gislin Dagnelie, PhD, Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University Schoolusanne M Furman, PhD, Cognitive Scientist, Information Technology Laboratory, NationaInstitute of Standards and technologSpecial Agent, Federal Bureau of InvestigationMare Green, PhD, Visual Expert Human Factors, Marc Green, Phd and AssociatesAustin Hicklin, NoblisJames Johnson Forensic consultant, Contracted to united states secret servicePhilip J Kellman, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of California, LosAngelesJonathan J Koehler, PhD, Beatrice Kuhn Professor of Law, Northwestern University School ofKevin Lothridge, Chief Executive officer National Forensic Science Technology centerTamas Makany, PhD, Cognitive PsychologistStephen B Meagher, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory(Retired)Ross J Michaels, PhD, Supervisory Computer Scientist, National Institute of Standards andKen Mohr, Senior Forensic Programmer/Planner, Crime Lab designKeith Morris, PhD, Associate Professor/ Director, Ming Hsieh Distinguished Professor, Forensicand Investigative Science, West Virginia UniversityKamran Nouri, Senior Consultant, ABS ConsultingRon smith President, Ron Smith and Associates IncBrian Stanton, MS, Cognitive Scientist, Information Technology Laboratory, National Instituteof Standards and TechnologyLois Tully, Former Deputy Director, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, NationalLeen vanden heManager, Incident Investigation and Root Cause Analysis Services,ABS ConsultingDouglas A

wiegmann, University of wisconsin-MadisorDavid D Woods, PhD, Professor, The Ohio State UniversityIndividuals chosendiverse perspectives and technical expertise reviewed this reportdraft form and provided constructive suggestions These reviewers were not asked to approve orendorse any conclusions or recommendations in the draft report, nor did they review thisnal version before its release Responsibility for the final content of this report rests with thethe Working GroupJohn P Black Senior Consultant Ron Smith and Associates IncDeborah A Boehm-Davis, PhD, George Mason UniversityDavid L Grieve, Illinois State Police(RetiredAustin hicklin noblisKevin Lothridge Chief Executive Officer National Forensic Science Technology enterLatent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Jennifer S Mihalovich, F-ABC, Criminalist Ill, Oakland Police Department CriminalisticsRoger C Park, James Edgar Hervey Distinguished Professor of Law, UC

Hastings College ofaw San franciscoPeter Peterson, PhD, Physical Scientist/Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of InvestigationLaura Tierney, Certified Latent Print ExamiMark L Weiss, PhD, Division Director, Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, National ScienceFoundationSandy Zabell, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, Northwestern Universityintroductio

Chapter 1: The Latent Print Examination Process and TerminologyntroductionTprocedure for associating impressions of friction ridge skin by a latent printexaminer involveshases known as Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and verification(ACE-V) This chapter describes the ACE-V process, notes some of its limitations, identifiesreas where human factors should bidered, and defines certain terms used throughout thisBox 11: TerminologyACE-V An acronym for Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification The ACe-V process isdescribedBias and error defined and discussed in section 12Exemplar or known prints Prints deliberately collected from an individualExemplar printsted electronically or byper cards Exemplars may bcalled ten-prints when impressions of all ten fingers are taken Exemplar prints collected duringcriminal arrests normally include one rolled(from one side of the nail to the other) print of each fingerpad and a plain or slap impression of each finger

Focal point: A small region containing distinguishing features within a printForensic service provider: A laboratorythat ees physical evidence in crimattersand provides testimony and reports about the examination findings In this report, the term is usedterchangeably with agencyLatentUnintentiduction of the arrangement of ridges on the skin on the underside ofthe hands or feet made by the transfer of materials from the skin to a surface This report uses the termprint or latent print to denote impressions from all regions of friction ridge skin unless a more specificterm such as"fingerprint "or"palm print"is usedLatent print examination: The study of latent and exemplar prints to help determine the source of thelatent print Because prints come from the friction ridge area of the skin on the hands or feet, latentprint analysis is sometimes referred to as friction ridge analysis As discussed below "Analyses theACE-V;therefore, this repterm“ examination, rather than“ analysis”or“ comparison” when referring to theality of work oflatLatent prihe individual who conducts the latent print examination, also called latentprint analyst1 Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Minutiae: Events along a ridge path, including bifurcations(points at which one friction ridgdivides into two friction ridges), dots (isolated friction ridge units that have lengths similartheir widths), and ridge endings(the abrupt end of ridges), as illustrated in Table房N寶Table 11: Illustrations of some friction ridge minutiae11 The ace-v Processbroad strokes, a latent print examination using the ACe-v process proceeds as followAnalysis refers to an initial information-gathering phase in which the examiner studies theunknown print to assess the quality and quantity of discriminating detail present The examineration such as substrate, development method, various levels of ridge detailand pressure distortions A separate analysis then occurs with the exemplar print Comparisonis the side-by-side observation of the friction ridge detail in the two prints to determineagreement or disagreement in the details

In the Evaluation phase, the examiner assesses theagreement or disagreement of the information observed during Analysis and Comparison andorms a conclusion Verification in some agencies is a review of an examiner's conclusions withknowledge of those conclusions; in other agencies, it is an independent re-examination by aecond examiner who does not know the outcome of the first examinationigure 1 1, developed by members of the Working Group, describes the steps of the ACE-Vrocess as currently practiced by the latent print examination community The Latent PrinExamination Process Map,s purpose is to facilitate discussion about key decision points in theACE-V process This chapter briefly describes eaACE-V, although the sequence ofome of the steps may vary in practiceImages adapted from Champod, C ReconnaiEmpreintes Digitales PhD Thesis Institut de Police Scientifique et de Criminologie, Universite de lausannpter 1: The Latent Print Examination Process and Terminology 2

alert prntPREANALYSISACTIVITY一一…ANALYSISCOMPARISONEVALUATIONL7: The latent print Examination Process m3 Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practicethrough a Systems approach was produced with funding from the UsDepartment of Justice's National Institute of Justice and in collaborationwith the Law Enforcement Standards Office in the US Department ofCommerce's National Institute of standards and technOpiniesed in thisand do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the USDepartment of Justice or the US Department of Commerce

Mention ofrt doesendorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nordoes it imply that such products or services are necessarily the best availableor the purposeSuggested citation format: Expert Working Group on Human Factorsatent Print Analysis Latent Print Examination and Human FactorsImproving the Practice through a Systems Approach US Department ofCommerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology 2012

Table of contentsIntroductionChapter 1: The Latent Print Examination Process and TerminologyChapter 2: Human Factors and ErrorsChapter 3: Interpreting Latent PrintsChapter 4: Looking Ahead to Emerging and Improving TechnologyChapter 5 Reports and documentationChapter 6: Test113Chapter 7: A Systems Approach to the Work EnvironmentChapter 8: Training and educationChapter 9: Human Factors Issues for ManagementChapter 10: Summary of recommendations197Bibliographyintroductio

List of boxes Figures and TablesBoxesBMisconceptions about“Bias” in ScienceBox 13: Probabilities Likelihood Ratios and IndividualizationBox 21: Daubert v Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals Inc and "Error rateBox 22: How Prevalence, Sensitivity, and Specificity Affect the Posterior Probability of aCorrect positive identificationBox 23: The Zero Numerator ProblemBox 24: Selected Results of the Noblis- FBI Experimentox 31: Studies on the effect of biasing InformationBox 71: Three mile island accidentBox 91: Learning from Others: Benchmarking in Forensic ScienceBox 92: High-Reliability OrganizationBox 93: Accreditation in the European UnionBox 9 4: Certification and Testing for the practice of medicineFiguresFigure 1 1: The Latent Print Examination Process MapFigure 1

2: Analysis phase of ACE-VFigure 13: Comparison phase of ACE-VFigure 1 4: A latent print and exemplar printsFigure 1 5: Evaluation phase of ACE-VFigure 16: Verification phase of ACE-VFigure 3I: LeDetail featuresFigure 32

: Examples of skin distortion on prints of the same finger with arrows indicatingcation of the same minutiae in differepressionsFigure 41: Example offilterFigure 42: Example of filters used to adjust color levels and to reverse the colorsFigure 43: An example of some minutiae locations in a fingerprintigure 71: A human factors frameworkFigure 7 2: The Hamilton Veale contrast sensitivity testFigure 73: An example of a poorly designed workstationFigure 7 4: An example of a poorly designeduser interraceFigure 9 1: Latent print frorshtray and an exemplar printFiiv Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

ble 1 1: Illustrations of some friction ridge minutiaeable 1 2: Posterior odds of identity for evidence with a likelihood ratio of 1, 000,000 inpopulations in which everyone has the same prior odds on being the source of a latentTable 2 1: Types of errors and correct conclusions in a binary classification taskable 22: Outcomes of a hypothetical experiment that estimates an examiner's sensitivity andTable 23: Hypothetical data to show probability of identifications in an 80-20ble 2 4: Hypothetical data to show probability of identifications in a 10-90 mixTable 25: Types of errors and correct conclusions in a binary classification task with the optionof not decidingTable 26: Concordancy in judgments of two examinersTable 27: Concordancy with desired outcomes as determined by expertsTable 28: Outcomes for pairs judged to be"of value for individualizationTable 29: Accuracy and error rates for exclusions and identifications in pairs judged to bevalue for individualization"and leading to exclusions or identificationsTable 3 1: Distribution for the general patterns on fingerprints from the left and right hands ofmales (89, 755, 960 fingers)Table 3

2: Distribution for the general patterns on fingerprints from the right thumb and littlgers of males(17, 951, 192 fingble 33: Examples of statistics on subclassificationsTable 34: Relative frequencies for different types of minutiae according to Gupta(1968)Osterburg et al (1977), and Lin et al (1982)Table 35: Relative frequencies for different types of mccording to santamaria beltranStrength of likelihood ratios in support of evidenceable 7 1: Recommended eye examinations frefor adTable 7 2: Definitions of usability goals and questions that apply specificalexaminerTable 73: Characteristics to consider when designing latent print examiners work environmentsle 74: Characteristics regardingto bederedble 91 possible outcomes of theparison of theTable 9 2: Concordance table listing possible"errors"for conclusions in Table 91introductio

IntroductioFingerprints have provided a valuable method of personal identification in forensic science andcriminal investigations for more than 100 years Fingerprints left at crime scenes generally arelatent prints--unintentional reproductions of the arrangement of ridges on the skin made by thetransfer of materials(such as amino acids, proteins, polypeptides, and salts)to a surface Palmsand the soles of feet also have friction ridge skin that can leave latent prints The examinationlatent printsts of aofparison of the latent print to a knov(or exemplar) print Courts have accepted latent print evidence for the past century Howevereveral high-profile cases in the United States and abroad have highlighted the fact that humanerrors can occur, ' and litigation and expressions of concern over the evidentiary reliability oflatent print examinations and other fodentification procedures has increased in the lastdecadeHuman factors"issues can arise in any experience-and judgment-based analytical process suclas latent print examination Inadequate training, extraneous knowledge about the suspects in thecase or other matters, poor judgment, health problems, limitations of vision, complex technolognd stress are but a few factors that can contribute to errors a lack of standards or qualitycontrolent insufficients, and substandard working conditions constituteother potentially contributing factorsaddition to reaching correct conclusions in the matching process, latent print examinersare expected to produce records of the examination and, in some cases, to present theiconclusions and the reasoning behind them in the courtroom human factors issues related to thedocumentation and communication of an examiner's work and findings therefore merit attentionas weThe study of human factors focuses on the interaction between humans and products, decisionprocedures, workspaces, and the overall environment encountered at work and in daily livingHuman factors analysis can advance our understanding of the nature of errors in complex worksettings Most preventable, adverIts are not just the resultted or idiosbehavior but are in part caused by systemic factors The forensic science community can benefifrom the application of human factors research to enhance quality and productivity in frictionBarnes, J"History"In The FiSourcebook National institute of justice 201l Cole s sA History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, Harvard UnMnookin, J Fingerprint Evidence in an Age of DNA Profiling "Brooklyn Law Review, 67(2001): 13E g

,R v Smith, 2011 EWCA Crim 1296: Bertino, A and P Bertino Forensic Science: Fundamentals andInvestigations South-Western Educational Publishing, 2009(Stephen Cowans case); US Department of Justice,Office of the Inspector General A Review ojlandling of the brandon Mayfield Case(Unclassified andRedacted) US Department of Justice, March 2006; and Sweeney, C, "Lord Advocate to Appear BShirleyMcKie Fingerprint Inquiry "The Times, October 21, 2008E g, Leveson, B Expert Evidence in Criminal Courts--The Problem, Address to the Feings College, University of London, November 18, 2010 For discussion of specific cases, see Chapter 6nders, M and E McCormick, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 7 ed McGraw-Hill CompaniesHuman: Building A Safer Health System National Academies Press, 1999Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

ridge examinations and to reduce the likelihood and connces of human error at varioustages in the interpretation of evidencefurther this effort, the National Institute of Justice(NI)Office of Investigative andForensic Sciences(OFIS)within the US Department of Justice and the National Institute ofStandards and Technologys(NISTs)Law Enforcement Standards Office(OLES)sponsoredhe work of this expert panel to examine human factors in latent print analysis and to developrecommendations to reduce the risk of error and improve the practice of latent print analysishe expert working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print AnalysisThe Expert Working Group on HiLatent Print Analysis was convenedDecember 2008 and charged with conducting a scientific assessment of the effects of humatactors on forensic latent print analysis A scientific assessment, as defined by the office ofManagement and Budget, is an evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge whichtypically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models, and assumptions, and/professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the available information

The Working Group waeveloping an understanding of the role of human factors and their contributionserrors in latent print analysis through an evidence-based review of literature, case studiesEvaluating approaches to reducing errors in terms of their efficacy, appropriatenessdifferent settings and circumstances, cost, scientific basis, feasibility, institutional barriersto implementation, associated risks, and the quality of evidence supporting the approachProviding guidance to the latent print analysis community on the practical, scientifiomes of its work through peeronferences and meetings, and government-sponsored publicationsProviding guidance to policy-makers and government agencies in promoting a nationaeduction in latent print analysAttempting to develop credible estimates of the incidence, severity, and costs of errorsMaking recommendations for future researchWorking Group members were selected because of their expertise in the forensic sciences oranother relevant field and the ability to balance scienal andconstraints The Working Group consisted of experts from forensic disciplines, statisticians,ts, engineers, other scientific experts, legal scholars, and representatives ofprofessional organizationsThe Working Group met 9 times over the course of 2 1/2 years and heard presentations fromexperts in human factors, vision science, laboratory design, latent print identification, andinterpretation in forensic science Each chapter in this report was developed by a subgroup of thegement and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review Office of Management andBudget, December 15, 2004introductio

Working Group, reviewed by the entire Working Group, edited by a committee within thegroup, and reviewed again by a set of independent experts The report was developed througha consensus process in which each Working Group member had an opportunity to influence therecommendations and writing Despite the diversity of backgrounds and views, the workingGroup was able to reach substantial agreement on many important issues, not limited to thedations Ontters hand particular chapters indicate those issues2 About the sponsorsNIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the US Department of Justice anddedicated to researchingTrol and justice issues

NIJ provides objective, independentevidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice The office ofnvestigative and Forensic Sciences(OIFS)is the federal government's lead agency for forensiccience research and development as well as for the administration of programs that provideort to crime laboratories and law enforcement agencies to increase their capacityto process high-volume cases, to provide needed training in new technologies, and to providepport to reduce backlogs Forensic science piareas include Research and DevelopmentBasic and applied forensic sciences Coverdell forensic Science Improvement grants dNANational Missing and Unidentified Persons System(NamUs), and ForensIc Dci iaBacklog Reduction, Solving Cold Cases with DNA, Postconviction DNA Testing AssistanceDevelopment and DeliveryNIST's mission is to advance measurement science, standards, and technology It accomplishesese actions for the forensic science community through the oles Forensic Science ProgramOLES Forensic Science Program directs research efforts to develop performance standards,measurement tools, operating procedures, guidelines, and reports that will advance the fieldOLES also serves the broader public safety community through thepromulgation of standards in the areas of protective systems; detection, enforcement, andinspection technologies; public safety communication; and counterterrorism and responseOrganization of This ReportChapter I provides an overview of the Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and verificationce-v) process for the examination of latent prints The chapter also explains certainerminology used throughout the reportaddresses the nature of errors in latent print analysis, the reasons for identifying them ormeasuring their prevalence, and possible ways to estimate accuracy and error ratesaddition, it describes the current state of knowledge, based upon published research, and RChapter 3 describes, defines, and clarifies the interpretative stages of latent print comparisorcerns and pitfalls in theocessLatent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach

Chapter 4 surveys new and forthcoming methods, technologies, and techniques It examinessearch needs and ways to improve existing technologies for recording and storing exemplarsfor utilizing automated searches to locate exemplars for further comparison, and for conductingprint examinatiChapter 5 addresses written reports thatts of friction skinimpression examinations Best practices in report writing and documentation increase theelihood that the evidence is scientifically accurate and will be used appropriately in theadministration of criminal justice The chapter describes the purposes and value of reportingand documenting examIand makes suggestions regarding the content of these materialsAppendices provide examples of sample reportsChapter 6 discusses trial and pretrial communications from the expert to lawyers, judges, anduries It reviews the more important legal rules and principles that apply to these activities andsurveys the types of testimony that might be provided at trialChapter 7 focuses on the conditions undch latenformed that can affectconsiders issues such as scheduling, lightingworkstations, interruptions, and workplace designChapter 8 reviews the current status of education and training for latent print examinersequirements and evaluation criteria, and curricula It makes recommendationsraining andeducational programs to improve quality and accuracy in latent print analysis and reportingChapter 9 focuses on the role of management in developing and maintaining the system forproducing high-quality results It reviews the components of a quality organization focusedon latent print analysis

These include management, personnel, accreditation, certificationproficiency testing, and a systems approach to error identification and mitigation It recommendsactions that managers and the latent print community should take to create or maintain qualityChapter 10 summarizes the most important parts of the preceding chapters It draws therecommendations from Chapters 3 through 9 into categories that may befor latent pxaminers,managers, research funding agencies, researchers, policymakers, and jurists Anappendix lists all formal recommendations in order of their appearance in this reportIthough this report explicitly addresses only the procedures for performing a latentfingerprint examination and communicating the results, muclysis and many othe recommendations are applicable to other forensic science disciplines Issues of cognitivebias standardizatiotation of examinations, working conditionserror detection and correction, and accuracy in testimony--among many others--cut acrosshe forensic sciences By identifying and managing the human factors issues relevant to latentrint analysis, the latent print community not only can enhance the quality and accuracy of itsontribthe justice system but also can setnple for other forensic disciplines TheWorking Group hopes that this report will assist in this effortintroductio