Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Catwell
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 3648 views
  • Likes 1 like
  • Comments 31 comments
Related
Recommended

Eye tracking system looks deep into your eyes - can tell if you’re lying

Catwell

image

SMI RED-oem Remote Eye Tracking platform render. (via SMI)


Law enforcement and federal agencies have been using polygraph machines to detect lies since Cesare Lombroso introduced his blood pressure device back in 1895. Before that? Torture was used as the best method to detect fibs (still is to some extent). Just ask any witch that was present at the Salem Trials and they could probably tell it didn’t work that well. Some analysts will tell you that the eyes are the gateway in detecting if someone is telling the truth or not. They claim the rate a person blinks is a telltale sign of lying as well as not making eye contact or even looking up and to the left or right may be an indication of false pretenses. Some of the early pioneers of computerized polygraph have banded together to form a company, known as Converus, which is developing a new platform that tracks eye movement to detect deception.


The soon-to-be-released EyeDetect device is outfitted with German-based SMI’s (SensoMotoric Instruments) RED-oem Eye Tracking 3D camera system that tracks gaze, eye movement and pupil dilation down to 1/10 of a millimeter. According to Converus, lying causes minute changes in the eye’s behavior because it induces ‘cognitive load’ (psychology- load related to executive control of working memory), which has an effect on eye movement. Think of it like computer RAM that holds on to pieces of data before being replaced by different programs. EyeDetect captures that ocular data and analyses it to assess the ‘likelihood’ of deception while ‘suspects’ answer a series of true or false questions. The company claims the system has an accuracy rate of 85%, which is pretty high in terms of reliability but most courts in the US still don’t allow polygraph tests submitted as evidence. Converus is set to launch their device in April of this year, with Mexico as its first test subject. Businesses will use it for pre-employment screening as well as using it for random testing on employees to weed-out those individuals that accept bribes or are involved in other nefarious activities (there goes police officers and government officials).


C

See more news at:

http://twitter.com/Cabe_Atwell


image

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    If the person believe it is the truth there wouldn't be any physical signs of lying at all, because they think it is the truth. I have to agree that this technology seems to measure an amount of anxiety or discomfort with a situation more than truth. Maybe some more technical reading would shed more light on it though,I'd like to get my hands on one to do some testing.

  • in reply to Problemchild

    Hi John,

     

    Too true.  There will always be people who feel that they must control everything.

    I wish them luck.  You can never control free thinking people.  If you succeed in isolating information and thought, you quickly find your society untenable.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to shabaz

    Hi Shabaz,

     

    Good points.  There are no guarantees of integrity regardless of what process or methods used.

    In the end, the only security you can have is based upon the good intent of the people entrusted to support it.

     

    Everyone makes decisions based upon the information they have at the time.  No decision is set in stone.  When you get better data, you make better decisions.

    Anyone that thinks you only have one chance to get it right will find themselves locked in indecision and are therefore useless as someone who needs to make decisions.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    Hi John,

     

    Let me clarify.  I only condone the use of the polygraph for a very small segment of work and only with the condition of voluntary participation.

    At no point would I ever support its use in a broader sense.

    As for rights violation, how about the idiocy the TSA puts you through before you can take a flight.  Total presumption of guilt until you are cleared to fly.

     

    The Poly is only useful for yes or no inquiries.  You need a specific question with a clear decision point.  It is useless to support "fishing" questions on hypothetical issues.

    Its just a tool and any tool can be abused.  Some people want a world of absolutes.  I wish them luck, humans are just not that simple.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    Shabaz raised a good point that happened in NZ a few years ago.

     

    It ended up becoming part of law and I think was called/referred to as "Whistleblowers Act".

     

    I think John has also made some very good points and thankfully I haven't heard of any here.

    We do have to have a Police background check which identifies several things before they will give us a clearance, however the same 'background' checks have failed to find information on prospective teachers who should not be associated with children ...so you have to wonder about how effective it is.

     

    I think we should just go back to the Voight-Kampff machine ... then at least we'd know they were humans.

    mark