Strategic Eye Movements are Used to Support Object Authentication

Abstract

Authentication is an important cognitive process used to determine whether one’s initial identification of an object is corroborated by additional sensory information. Although authentication is critical for safe interaction with many objects, including food, websites, and valuable documents, the visual orienting strategies used to garner additional sensory data to support authentication remain poorly understood. When reliable visual cues to counterfeit cannot be anticipated, distributing fixations widely across an object’s surface might be useful. However, strategic fixation of specific object-defining attributes would be more efficient and should lead to better authentication performance. To investigate, we monitored eye movements during a repetitive banknote authentication task involving genuine and counterfeit banknotes. Although fixations were distributed widely across the note prior to authentication decisions, preference for hard-to mimic areas and avoidance of easily mimicked areas was evident. However, there was a strong tendency to initially fixate the banknote’s portrait, and only thereafter did eye movement control appear to be more strategic. Those who directed a greater proportion of fixations at hard-to-mimic areas and resisted more easily mimicked areas performed better on the authenticity task. The tendency to deploy strategic fixation improved with experience, suggesting that authentication benefits from precise visual orienting and refined categorisation criteria.

Banknote Authenticity is Signalled By Rapid Neural Responses

“…In this view the extended P3 could re ect serial searching of the memory representation of the note for information that con rms the counterfeit judgement. This would be consistent with eye-movement patterns found during banknote authentication that suggest con rmatory visual scanning 13 and with extant views of serial visual search strategies 33,34 . The later latency of the MVPA classi cation accuracy of the behavioural response when the banknote was counterfeit compared to genuine also suggests that genuine banknotes can be classi ed quickly, whereas counterfeit banknotes require protracted processing, likely involving higher-order processes such as selective attention, working memory, and long-term memory.…”

“…However, if incoming signals were su ciently unexpected, they could alert high-level strategic mechanisms to alter or widen object recognition processes 8 , prolonging the high-level analysis needed for object categorisation and thereby facilitating counterfeit detection. This notion of a two-stage process in counterfeit detection that begins with sensory cue detection, followed by greater cognitive engagement of object analysis mechanisms has been previously proposed to account for behaviour 12 and eye movements 13 made during a banknote authentication task. However, direct evidence of the underlying neural mechanisms that could mediate such a two-stage process is lacking.…”

Banknote authenticity is signalled by rapid neural responses

“…In this view the extended P3 could reflect serial searching of the memory representation of the note for information that confirms the counterfeit judgement. This would be consistent with eye-movement patterns found during banknote authentication that suggest confirmatory visual scanning 15 and with extant views of serial visual search strategies 35 , 36 . The later latency of the MVPA classification accuracy of the behavioural response when the banknote was counterfeit compared to genuine also suggests that genuine banknotes can be classified quickly, whereas counterfeit banknotes require protracted processing, likely involving higher-order processes such as selective attention, working memory, and long-term memory.…”

“…However, if incoming signals were sufficiently unexpected, they could alert high-level strategic mechanisms to alter or widen object recognition processes 9 , prolonging the high-level analysis needed for object categorisation and thereby facilitating counterfeit detection. This notion of a two-stage process in counterfeit detection that begins with sensory cue detection, followed by greater cognitive engagement of object analysis mechanisms has been previously proposed to account for behaviour 14 and eye movements 15 made during a banknote authentication task. However, direct evidence of the underlying neural mechanisms that could mediate such a two-stage process is lacking.…”