Foundations of Augmented Cognition: Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience

Schmorrow, Dylan D.; Fidopiastis, Cali M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39952-2

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2017

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Book1

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent5

Authors

Journals

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Komplexität und Systemwissenschaft

Arnold

2024

Systemisch Denken Und Handeln in Richtung Nachhaltigkeit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Komplexität und Systemwissenschaft

Arnold

2024

Systemisch Denken Und Handeln in Richtung Nachhaltigkeit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lyin' eyes: Ocular-motor measures of reading reveal deception.

Cook¹,

Hacker²,

Webb³

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our goal was to evaluate an alternative to current methods for detecting deception in security screening contexts. We evaluated a new cognitive-based test of deception that measured participants’ ocular-motor responses (pupil responses and reading behaviors) while they read and responded to statements on a computerized questionnaire. In Experiment 1, participants from a university community were randomly assigned to either a “guilty” group that committed one of two mock crimes or an “innocent” group that only learned about the crime. Participants then reported for testing, where they completed the computer-administered questionnaire that addressed their possible involvement in the crimes. Experiment 2 also manipulated participants’ incentive to pass the test and difficulty of statements on the test. In both experiments, guilty participants had increased pupil responses to statements answered deceptively; however, they spent less time fixating on, reading, and re-reading those statements than statements answered truthfully. These ocular-motor measures were optimally weighted in a discrimination function that correctly classified 85% of participants as either guilty or innocent. Findings from Experiment 2 indicated that group discrimination was improved with greater incentives to pass the test and the use of statements with simple syntax. The present findings suggest that two cognitive processes are involved in deception -- vigilance and strategy -- and that these processes are reflected in different ocular-motor measures. The ocular-motor test reported here represents a new approach to detecting deception that may fill an important need in security screening contexts.

show abstract