New Lie Detector? Long...

Jffal

New member
Though frustrated with a legal system more concerned with games than justice, I am not sure if the developments chronicled below will be beneficial for us...assuming they add up to anything much to begin with.

Practice your pokerface.
Jeff


THE SALK INSTITUTE
FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
10010 N. Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA 92037
(619) 453-4100
 
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Suzanne Clancy; Warren Froelich
(619) 453-4100, x 1340; x 1646; x 1226
FAX (619) 453-3015
e-mail: clancy@salk.edu; froelich@salk.edu
Computer Program Trained To Read Faces Developed By Salk Team
LA JOLLA, CALIF. March 17, 1999 – A computer program developed by a Salk-led team has been trained to distinguish among a number of facial cues, helping to sort false from genuine expressions. What's more, the program performs as well as a psychologist trained to read faces and markedly better than human non-experts.
"Computers have a difficult time analyzing expressions on faces, something we can do without even thinking," said Terrence Sejnowski, Salk professor and senior author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Psychophysiology.
"But by mimicking the ability of humans to learn by experience, computers have now broken through this barrier," he said.
Investigators hope that their program will prove helpful to law enforcement officials and mental health professionals.
"When someone is lying, their true feelings often flicker across their face in what we call a micro-expression, which is quickly covered up by a posed expression," said Paul Ekman, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco and co-author of the study. "These signals may be too brief for professionals to detect in an interview setting, but they can be picked up if the conversation is videotaped and reviewed."
The problem is that human analysis is labor-intensive and painstakingly slow. "It takes about one hour to score one minute of tape," explained Marian S. Bartlett, Salk postdoctoral researcher and first author of the study. "Our program, on the other hand, can do a minute of tape in about five minutes, and once we optimize the program it will run in near real-time."
So, exactly what is being measured by the computer program? In the 1970s, a team of psychologists led by Ekman developed a code that breaks down facial expressions into component movements by individual facial muscles. For example, the crinkling of the eyes that causes crow's feet is produced by contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle, an action that in a spontaneous smile is coordinated with movement of the zygomaticus major muscle, which lifts up the corners of the mouth. Each of these movements has a designated action unit number. "So you could describe a smile as AU6 + AU12," said Bartlett.
People not well versed in the subtleties of facial movements have a very difficult time "faking" expressions. For example, sadness has a characteristic set of gestures, one of the most distinctive being the contraction of the central frontalis
muscle that raises the inner corners of the brows, producing wrinkles in the central forehead.
"That's a really difficult one to pull off if it's not spontaneous," said Bartlett. For that reason, law enforcement officials are interested in programs that can analyze suspects being questioned and raise red flags when it perceives insincere emotions.
The automated program is also of interest to mental health professionals. For example, Ekman was involved in a case in which a woman had convinced her team of doctors that she was ready for discharge from a psychiatric hospital. Shortly before her release however, she confessed that she, in fact, planned to commit suicide.
When Ekman, an expert in facial expression analysis, analyzed a videotape of her interview frame-by-frame, he detected a clue to her deception. When she was asked, 'What are your plans for the future?' a look of despair flitted across the woman's face, which was quickly covered up by a smile.
"Fortunately," said Ekman, "in this case, the patient had admitted her deception and accepted further treatment. Ideally, psychiatrists would like to have a tool to flag such potentially dangerous situations, but they don't have the time to score hours of videotape manually."
The program works by comparing images of faces to 60 filters, or templates, each of which looks for independent components of facial movement in different regions. For instance, raising the left inner brow would increase a face's match to filter no. 1, whereas raising the left outer brow would increase the match to filter no. 2. The computer analyzes the information from all 60 filters and decides whether the collective output matches AU1 or AU2 and so on.
In the current study, the program was trained to recognize six of 46 individual muscle actions described by Ekman. For all six actions, it out-performed human non-experts and performed as well as highly trained human experts. The investigators plan next to teach it the remaining actions and then tackle combinations of these actions.
"Although we have a proof of principle that computers can be taught to recognize facial expressions," said Sejnowski, "there is still a long way to go before we have practical systems that are as flexible as humans over a wide range of head positions and lighting conditions. The next step is to integrate what we have done with work by other groups on solving these problems."
Joseph C. Hager at the Network Information Research Corp in Salt Lake City is a co-author of the study, titled "Measuring Facial Expressions by Computer Image Analysis." The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Intra-University Agreement.
For additional information, contact: Rebecca Sladek Nowlis
University of California, San Francisco
 
Sounds like a Voigt-Comf (SP??) machine..
In BladeRunner, that was the computerized response analyzer which used Biological cues such as tone and eye movement to tell the difference between real people and replicants.
 
Wouldn't it be fun to have one of these babies focused on the next Presidential debate, with a running score on the podium of each candidate?
 
The Sharper Image has a voice stress analyzer in its catalog. I've been tempted to buy one and park it next to the TV. Of course, I'd have to discontinue my practice of hitting the mute button everytime the boy president comes on the news.

TB., NC
 
Tim, I can see one of two scenarios:
1) WJC has lied so much the stress meter wouldn't flicker, or
2) Clinton's voice would blow the device to smithereens! :D
 
I've been reading thefiringline.com for a while. Man, I feel so strongly about this particular topic that I became a registered member just to say something about it.

I am speaking as a biologist and experimental psychologist when I say that this study is pure hogwash.

There is simply no definitive correlation between someone's outward physiological signs and what he is actually thinking. Monitoring a person's vital signs, skin conductivity, facial expressions, or any observable characteristics gives no insight whatsoever into his actual thoughts. For example, if a person shows elevated blood pressure, it may be because he is feeling happy, anxious, guilty, nervous, excited, or most any emotion. It is just impossible to tell which one.

People have been attempting "lie detection" for many years. "Lie detector" systems have been developed that measure heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, skin conductance, upper lip temperature, body movement, eye movement, voice stress, penis circumference (not kidding), and facial expression, just to name a few. Some incorporate advanced technologies and sophisticated instruments. Unfortunely, they are all based on the premise that "lying" results in unique and measureable biological signs--which is simply not true. This is supported by many, many studies.

In addition, other studies have shown that anyone can manipulate a "lie detector" test with minimal training and knowledge. Such knowledge is readily available over the internet or any number of sources. It is reasonable to think that any intelligent person who has an interest in "defeating" a "lie detector" tests would access such infomation.

Which brings us to the danger in all this. Most psychologists agree that such "lie detector" systems are scientifically unsound. Unfortunately, many simply accept their reliability. Prospective FBI agents must pass such a test before employment. People on Jenny Jones or other talk shows have their lovers take "lie detector" tests to prove/disprove fidelity. So, federal agents hired to protect you have "passed" a test that shows nothing and falsely removes suspicion. Lives can be destroyed because of the results of a "lie detector" test.

Our lawmakers are not completely blind to this--"lie detector" tests are generally inadmissable in court and it is illegal to give such tests to prospective employees. Unfortunately, people (and lawmakers) can be dazzled by new technology, especially when it comes from a reputable institution like the Salk Institute.

-P
 
Back
Top