Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Catwell
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 3707 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

Parents

  • Some people like to rely on a device so that they do not have to carry the responsibility for judging someone in case they get it wrong.

     

    There is a worrisome trend developing where the least trust worthy people (politicians) want all of the rest of us to tell the truth.

    At the same time, they will not let us use one on them before we elect them to office.

    Makes me very curious about who is funding the development and their intended purpose.

     

    Me, I am too lazy to lie.  There are too many details you have to remember and it is only when you are caught, not if.

    So just be honest and you are ok.  Plus it gives me a good excuse to be very blunt when people ask me esoteric questions. image

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    Me, I am too lazy to lie.  There are too many details you have to remember ...

    I agree its hard to work out which bit you told who, and whether they know more than you.

     

    I have found that some people don't like being told the truth ... or maybe they wanted it sugar coated and implied rather than direct...

     

    mark

  • in reply to DAB

    Agreed.

    We have some engineers at work who seem to get lost in their own spin, with little evidence to support the claim.

    Engaging with them is sometimes an exercise in spin v antispin until finally the blunt statement "that is C%^" wakes them up and makes them think about their spin.

     

    Its sometimes puzzling why such clever people can manage to deviate from genuine scientific proven testing to support their conclusion or reason why the sky is now not blue, despite several people observing it in its abnormal state.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to mcb1

    good point, i'm sure it's not just engineers. there are certain situations where its necessary to lie or sugar coat just to be polite. Go ahead and tell your wife that her favorite pants make her butt look big.

     

    My big issue with "lie detectors" is that an employer or government agency has no rights to your thoughts let alone your physiology. IMHO no employer is worth working for if they require a polygraph or similar. its usually an indication that they themselves have a hidden agenda.

  • in reply to sqkybeaver
    Go ahead and tell your wife that her favorite pants make her butt look big.

    She knows not to ask that one/similar questions since I'll very likely be honest with an answer ...image

     

    Not sure about your side of the world, but many of our employers rely too much on the 'failed physiologists'  (ie HR department) to vet the people applying.

    We have proven many times that they are rejecting many of the ones we need but passing through those that are incapable of doing the job... just because they can pass their tests.

     

    It not actually hard to work out if someone has the experience they say based on intelligent questions by those that actually know what they are talking about.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    Hi Sheldon,

     

    A "lie" detector is just a verification tool.  For some its an intrusion while others see it as a vindication tool.

    Some occupations demand "absolute" truth to be trusted with important information.  Trust requires verification against temptations.

     

    When the occupation is very important, then the verification process is essential.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    DAB

     

    i don't see any evidence any polygraph can be of any value. the most famous polygraph liars are on record saying confidence(or similar)  is the only thing needed to dupe the tests. forget last years conviction of Mr. Dixon for teaching countermeasure techniques, the government relies to much on on devices and "professionals" that have no more concrete "evidence" than a tarot reading.

     

    as far as the need to to handle sensitive information, 14(or more) US government agencies use the polygraph for pre-employment screening. every one of the agencies has been caught in a lie of some sort on official reports.

     

    as far as i am concerned, the presidency of the united states should be subject to these test if they are deemed necessary for NSA annalists.

     

    if i was interrogating(interviewing) you for a job, how would you respond to a question like: "if you were upset with official policy, would you only bring it up to your supervisor, or would you bring it to public light?" this is the type of questions asked to determine if applicants are in line with the current bosses.

     

    seemingly open-ended questions can be interpreted many ways, this is an issue these tests where the interviewee could be easy tricked into saying something damning, even if false.

     

    i'm not sure the 85% accuracy is valid, if it was a dmm that could read 6 volts when it it could be true 3 volts. these tests are no more science than homeopathy or a visit with some sort of medium.

     

    as far as a confirmation of employment status, i am sure it is cheaper and more reliable to call a previous employer than to hire a pornographer.

Comment
  • in reply to DAB

    DAB

     

    i don't see any evidence any polygraph can be of any value. the most famous polygraph liars are on record saying confidence(or similar)  is the only thing needed to dupe the tests. forget last years conviction of Mr. Dixon for teaching countermeasure techniques, the government relies to much on on devices and "professionals" that have no more concrete "evidence" than a tarot reading.

     

    as far as the need to to handle sensitive information, 14(or more) US government agencies use the polygraph for pre-employment screening. every one of the agencies has been caught in a lie of some sort on official reports.

     

    as far as i am concerned, the presidency of the united states should be subject to these test if they are deemed necessary for NSA annalists.

     

    if i was interrogating(interviewing) you for a job, how would you respond to a question like: "if you were upset with official policy, would you only bring it up to your supervisor, or would you bring it to public light?" this is the type of questions asked to determine if applicants are in line with the current bosses.

     

    seemingly open-ended questions can be interpreted many ways, this is an issue these tests where the interviewee could be easy tricked into saying something damning, even if false.

     

    i'm not sure the 85% accuracy is valid, if it was a dmm that could read 6 volts when it it could be true 3 volts. these tests are no more science than homeopathy or a visit with some sort of medium.

     

    as far as a confirmation of employment status, i am sure it is cheaper and more reliable to call a previous employer than to hire a pornographer.

Children
  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    damn auto spell correct, that last word should have been polygrapher.

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    I don't know ...... at least with the first you pretty sure what you're getting.image

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    For most people, just knowing they will be randomly selected for a Poly is enough reason to keep clean.

    If someone is going to do something bad, then the Poly does not work unless you catch them while they are doing something bad.

     

    The current US laws prevent former employers from providing "accurate information" about past employees, so a Poly is much better for accuracy.

    Open ended questions are useless for determining hiring.  I mostly judged people on attitude after they demonstrated technical knowledge.

    If I was not sure of a person, I just did not hire them.  The whole process is about risk management.  No process is 100%, but there a little things that indicate the persons intent.

     

    You do not have to like them, but short of any other accurate method for determining truth, they are better than nothing.

    Information control is essential in keeping track of who knows what and when.  Most people show signs of behavior before they do bad things, but you still need to know what to look for and when to suspect things.  Those talents are not common and we need more people who are good at it.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    DAB wrote:

     

    For most people, just knowing they will be randomly selected for a Poly is enough reason to keep clean.

        kind of like how locks only keep the honest people, honest.

    DAB wrote:

     

    If I was not sure of a person, I just did not hire them.

    I feel the same way.

    DAB wrote:

     

    but short of any other accurate method for determining truth, they are better than nothing.

     

    I would pick nothing, these test can do nothing that an observant interviewer can't figure out on their own, countermeasures aside.

     

    I can understand why a polygraph is used in criminal investigations, I can't however understand why people would subject themselves to one for any job.

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    The polygraph is used because it does provide a baseline of lying or not.  It is very effective against the average person and it helps take the decision out of the domain of a an educated guess.

     

    I have taken the test and all I can say is that it was no big deal and it gave me access to toys beyond my wildest dreams.

    Unless you have something to hide, you should not worry about taking the test.

    If you have something to hide, then it is better that you stay away from the jobs that require trust.

     

    The decision is yours, but by refusing the test, you automatically cast doubt about your character.

    Many consider your refusal as an admission of untrustworthiness.

     

    I have know some people who have refused and they limited their career because they were automatically unqualified for some of the more challenging and interesting projects.

     

    Just a thought.

     

    DAB