↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Robotics and AI, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can a Robot Catch You Lying? A Machine Learning System to Detect Lies During Interactions
Published in
Frontiers in Robotics and AI, July 2019
DOI 10.3389/frobt.2019.00064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Gonzalez-Billandon, Alexander M. Aroyo, Alessia Tonelli, Dario Pasquali, Alessandra Sciutti, Monica Gori, Giulio Sandini, Francesco Rea

Abstract

<p>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.</p>

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 25 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 14 21%
Psychology 5 8%
Engineering 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 30 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,283,778
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Robotics and AI
#141
of 1,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,126
of 360,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Robotics and AI
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.