Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Truth is the highest thing that man may keep.

-GEOFFREY CHAUCER, The Canterbury Tales You ever get that feeling that someone's lying? Perhaps you've asked a question to a colleague and before answering, she shift her glance. Well, there may be something to your instinct. And now a computer camera and tracking software is able to turn instinct into hard-line lie-detecting. If the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey taught us anything, its that computers know when were telling a lie. While that may not actually be the case for most computers in real life, it could be if theyre running a program created by scientists

Human Eye
The human eye is an organ which reacts to light for several purposes. As a conscious sense organ, the mammalian eye allows vision. Rod and cone cells in the retina allow conscious light perception and vision including color differentiation and the perception of depth. The human eye can distinguish about 10 million colors. On an average, your eyes blinks over 27,397 times in a days. Similarly , your eyes blinks over 10,000,000 times a year!

1. vitreous body 2. Ora serrata 3. Ciliary muscle 4.ciliary zonules 5. canal of Schlemm 6. pupil 7.anterior chamber 8. cornea 9. iris 10. lens cortex 11. lens nucleus 12. ciliary process 13. conjunctiva 14. inferior oblique muscle

15. inferior rectus muscle 16. medial rectus muscle 17. retinal arteries and veins 18. optic disc 19. dura mater 20. central retinal artery 21. Central retinal vein 22. optic nerve 23. Vorticose vein 24. bulbar sheath 25. macula 26.fovea 27. sclera 28. Choroid 29. superior rectus muscle 30. retina

Eye movement is
the voluntary or involuntary movement of the eyes, helping in acquiring, fixating and tracking visual stimuli. It may also compensate for a body movement, such as when moving the head. In addition, rapid eye movement occurs during REM sleep. What is a LIE? Technically To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally. In some situations, including perjury and some fraud, lying may be punishable by law.

POLYGRAPH ("lie detector")

"I don't know anything about lie detectors other than they scare the hell out of people." -Richard Nixon A polygraph is an instrument that simultaneously records changes in physiological processes such as heartbeat, blood pressure, respiration and electrical resistance (galvanic skin response or GSR). The polygraph is used as a lie detector by police departments, the FBI, the CIA, federal and state governments, and numerous private agencies. The underlying theory of the polygraph is that when people lie they also get measurably nervous about lying. The heartbeat increases, blood pressure goes up, breathing rhythms change, perspiration increases, etc. A baseline for these physiological characteristics is established by asking the subject questions whose answers the investigator knows. Deviation from the baseline for truthfulness is taken as sign of lying. There are three basic approaches to the polygraph test:

The Control Question Test (CQT). This test compares the physiological response to relevant questions about the crime with the response to questions relating to possible prior misdeeds. "This test is often used to determine whether certain criminal suspects should be prosecuted or classified as uninvolved in the crime" (American Psychological Association).

The Directed Lie Test (DLT). This test tries to detect lying by comparing physiological responses when the subject is told to deliberately lie to responses when they tell the truth.

The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). This test compares physiological responses to multiple-choice type questions about the crime, one choice of which contains information only the crime investigators and the criminal would know about. Psychologists do not think either the CQT or the DLT is scientifically sound, but a majority surveyed by the American Psychological Association think that the Guilty Knowledge Test is based on sound scientific theory and consider it "a promising forensic tool." However, they

"would not advocate its admissibility [in court] in the absence of additional research with real-life criminal cases." One major problem with this test is that it has no controls. Also, unless the investigators have several pieces of insider information to use in their questioning, they run the risk of making a hasty conclusion based on just one or two "deviant" responses. There may be many reasons why a subject would select the "insider" choice to a question. Furthermore, not responding differently to the "insider" choices for several questions should not be taken as proof the subject is innocent. He or she may be a sociopath, a psychopath, or simply a good liar. The machine measures changes in blood pressure, pulse, and respiration rate. When a person lies it is assumed that these physiological changes occur in such a way that a trained expert can detect whether the person is lying. Is there a scientific formula or law which establishes a regular correlation between such physiological changes and lying? No. Is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than nonexperts using other methods? No. There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth. Professor Tim Levine, Professor of Communications, Michigam State University, researched on finding whether a person is saying the truth or lying in the month of May 2008. However, Levines research focuses only on interpersonal deception, not technology based lie detector. By July 2010, Scientists at the University of Utah have developed technology that -- unlike a polygraph, which detects a person's physiological response when lying -records minute eye movement such as pupil dilation to measure a person's cognitive reaction. The recording takes place while a subject answers a series of written true and false questions. During the session, the camera also records other variables, including the time it takes to respond to a question, how long it takes a subject to read or even reread a question and how many errors are made.

These variables and reactions, which are subtle, can indicate lying. "We have gotten great results from our experiments," educational psychologist John Kircher said in this press release. "They are as good as or better than the polygraph, and we are still in the early stages of this innovative new method to determine if someone is trying to deceive you." The researchers say their lie-detecting system has a few advantages over polygraph including cheaper cost and a much shorter time for examinations. Kircher and his colleagues recently licensed the technology to Park City, UT-based Credibility Assessment Technologies. They hope the method will be adopted by government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection. From the University Of Buffalo, New York, a team of scientists produced a software that allowed a computer to assess a speakers eye movements, to determine whether or not they were telling the truth in a prerecorded conversation, built on a previous psychological study.

Inspired by the work of psychologists who study the human face for clues that someone is telling a highstakes lie, UB computer scientists are exploring whether machines can also read the visual cues that give away deceit. Results so far are promising: In a study of 40 videotaped conversations, an automated system that analyzed eye movements correctly identified whether interview subjects were lying or telling the truth 82.5 percent of the time. Thats a better accuracy rate than expert human interrogators typically achieve in lie-detection judgment experiments, said Ifeoma Nwogu, a research assistant professor at UBs Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors (CUBS) who helped develop the system. In published results, even experienced interrogators average closer to 65 percent, Nwogu said.

What we wanted to understand was whether there are signal changes emitted by people when they are lying, and can machines detect them? The answer was yes, and yes, said Nwogu, whose full name is pronounced efo-ma nwo-gu. The research was peer-reviewed, published and presented as part of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition. Nwogus colleagues on the study included CUBS scientists Nisha Bhaskaran and Venu Govindaraju, and UB communication professor Mark G. Frank, a behavioral scientist whose primary area of research has been facial expressions and deception. In the past, Franks attempts to automate deceit detection have used systems that analyze changes in body heat or examine a slew of involuntary facial expressions. The automated UB system tracked a different trait -- eye movement. The system employed a statistical technique to model how people moved their eyes in two distinct situations: during regular conversation, and while fielding a question designed to prompt a lie. People whose pattern of eye movements changed between the first and second scenario were assumed to be lying, while those who maintained consistent eye movement were assumed to be telling the truth. In other words, when the critical question was asked, a strong deviation from normal eye movement patterns suggested a lie. Previous experiments in which human judges coded facial movements found documentable differences in eye contact at times when subjects told a high-stakes lie. What Nwogu and fellow computer scientists did was create an automated system that could verify and improve upon information used by human coders to successfully classify liars and truth tellers. The next step will be to expand the number of subjects studied and develop automated systems that analyze body language in addition to eye contact. Nwogu said that while the sample size was small, the findings are exciting.

They suggest that computers may be able to learn enough about a persons behavior in a short time to assist with a task that challenges even experienced interrogators. The videos used in the study showed people with various skin colors, head poses, lighting and obstructions such as glasses. This does not mean machines are ready to replace human questioners, however -- only that computers can be a helpful tool in identifying liars, Nwogu said. She noted that the technology is not foolproof: A very small percentage of subjects studied were excellent liars, maintaining their usual eye movement patterns as they lied. Also, the nature of an interrogation and interrogators expertise can influence the effectiveness of the liedetection method. The videos used in the study were culled from a set of 132 that Frank recorded during a previous experiment. In Franks original study, 132 interview subjects were given the option to steal a check made out to a political party or cause they strongly opposed. Subjects who took the check but lied about it successfully to a retired law enforcement interrogator received rewards for themselves and a group they supported; Subjects caught lying incurred a penalty: they and their group received no money, but the group they despised did. Subjects who did not steal the check faced similar punishment if judged lying, but received a smaller sum for being judged truthful. The interrogators opened each interview by posing basic, everyday questions. Following this mundane conversation, the interrogators asked about the check. At this critical point, the monetary rewards and penalties increased the stakes of lying, creating an incentive to deceive and do it well. In their study on automated deceit detection, Nwogu and her colleagues selected 40 videotaped interrogations. They used the mundane beginning of each to establish what normal, baseline eye movement looked like for each subject, focusing on the rate of blinking and the frequency with which people shifted their direction of gaze. The scientists then used their automated system to compare each subjects baseline eye movements with eye movements during the critical section of each

interrogation -- the point at which interrogators stopped asking everyday questions and began inquiring about the check. If the machine detected unusual variations from baseline eye movements at this time, the researchers predicted the subject was lying.