Abstract
To assess the efficacy of using eyeblink frequency modulation to detect deception about a third party, 32 participants were sent on a mission to deliver a package to an interviewer. 17 of the participants lied to the interviewer about the details of their mock mission and 15 responded truthfully. During the interview, eyeblink frequency data were collected via electromyography and recorded video. Liars displayed eyeblink frequency suppression while lying, while truth tellers exhibited an increase in eyeblink frequency during the mission relevant questioning period. The compensatory flurry of eyeblinks following deception observed in previous studies was absent in the present study. A discriminant function using eyeblink suppression to predict lying correctly classified 81.3% of cases, with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 73.3%. This technique, yielding a reasonable sensitivity, shows promise for future testing as, unlike polygraph, it is compatible with distance technology.
Highlights
Modern deception detection methods testing physiological indices of deception use techniques such as galvanic skin response (GSR; e.g., Carmel et al, 2003), fMRI (e.g., Bhatt et al, 2009; Langleben et al, 2005; Shah et al, 2001), and EEG detected P300 event related potentials (Abootalebi, Moradi & Khalilzadeh, 2006; Ambach et al, 2010; Meijer et al, 2007 )
The analysis revealed a main effect for Experimental Period, F(1, 30) = 16.17, p < .001, ηp2 = .35, such that participants exhibited a higher blink frequency (BF) during the target period (M = .98, SD = .21) than the target offset period (M = .71, SD = .36)
The Veracity x Experimental Period interaction effect indicated that liars displayed a significantly suppressed BF during the target period (M = .85, SD = .13) compared to the increase exhibited by truth tellers (M = 1.12, SD = .19; d = 1.66), and less BF reduction during the target offset period (M = .74, SD = .36) compared to truth tellers (M = .66, SD = .34; d = .23; Fig. 1)
Summary
Modern deception detection methods testing physiological indices of deception use techniques such as galvanic skin response (GSR; e.g., Carmel et al, 2003), fMRI (e.g., Bhatt et al, 2009; Langleben et al, 2005; Shah et al, 2001), and EEG detected P300 event related potentials (Abootalebi, Moradi & Khalilzadeh, 2006; Ambach et al, 2010; Meijer et al, 2007 ). Responses are sometimes elicited (e.g., Langleben, 2008) using some variation of the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT; Lykken, 1957 ; Lykken, 1959). Though these physiological techniques may provide strong sensitivity and specificity in laboratory settings (MacLaren, 2001), they require proprietary equipment, proximity to the suspect, and suspect awareness of the analysis. BF modulation is an attractive behavioral indicator of deception because BF data may be collected using hidden cameras or distance technology (i.e., web cams) and analyzed surreptitiously either in real time or post hoc from recorded video. BF modulation has been experimentally validated using both GKT based questioning methods reliant upon recognition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
