Literature DB >> 33501079

Can a Robot Catch You Lying? A Machine Learning System to Detect Lies During Interactions.

Jonas Gonzalez-Billandon1,2, Alexander M Aroyo3, Alessia Tonelli4, Dario Pasquali1,2,5, Alessandra Sciutti3, Monica Gori4, Giulio Sandini1, Francesco Rea1.   

Abstract

Deception is a complex social skill present in human interactions. Many social professions such as teachers, therapists and law enforcement officers leverage on deception detection techniques to support their work activities. Robots with the ability to autonomously detect deception could provide an important aid to human-human and human-robot interactions. The objective of this work is to demonstrate the possibility to develop a lie detection system that could be implemented on robots. To this goal, we focus on human and human robot interaction to understand if there is a difference in the behavior of the participants when lying to a robot or to a human. Participants were shown short movies of robberies and then interrogated by a human and by a humanoid robot "detectives." According to the instructions, subjects provided veridical responses to half of the question and false replies to the other half. Behavioral variables such as eye movements, time to respond and eloquence were measured during the task, while personality traits were assessed before experiment initiation. Participant's behavior showed strong similarities during the interaction with the human and the humanoid. Moreover, the behavioral features were used to train and test a lie detection algorithm. The results show that the selected behavioral variables are valid markers of deception both in human-human and in human-robot interactions and could be exploited to effectively enable robots to detect lies.
Copyright © 2019 Gonzalez-Billandon, Aroyo, Tonelli, Pasquali, Sciutti, Gori, Sandini and Rea.

Entities:  

Keywords:  deception; humanoid robot; lie detection; ocular behavior; random forests

Year:  2019        PMID: 33501079      PMCID: PMC7805987          DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2019.00064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Robot AI        ISSN: 2296-9144


  9 in total

1.  Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge".

Authors:  T L Seymour; C M Seifert; M G Shafto; A L Mosmann
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2000-02

2.  Differentiation of deception using pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing.

Authors:  D P Dionisio; E Granholm; W A Hillix; W F Perrine
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 3.  Cues to deception.

Authors:  Bella M DePaulo; James J Lindsay; Brian E Malone; Laura Muhlenbruck; Kelly Charlton; Harris Cooper
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Authors:  Jerome Fan; Suneel Upadhye; Andrew Worster
Journal:  CJEM       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.410

Review 5.  On the psychology of confessions: does innocence put innocents at risk?

Authors:  Saul M Kassin
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2005-04

6.  Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): a brief measure of dark personality traits.

Authors:  Daniel N Jones; Delroy L Paulhus
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2013-12-09

7.  Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests.

Authors:  C R Honts; D C Raskin; J C Kircher
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1994-04

8.  The endogenous eyeblink.

Authors:  J A Stern; L C Walrath; R Goldstein
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Walczyk; Frank P Igou; Alexa P Dixon; Talar Tcholakian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-02-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.