Cited by 35Deception detection and forensic psychologyEmotion and Mood RecognitionFace recognition and analysis

A Video-Based Screening System for Automated Risk Assessment Using Nuanced Facial Features

Pentland, Steven J., Twyman, Nathan W., Burgoon, Judee K., Nunamaker, Jay F., Diller, Christopher B.R.·2017·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

This study investigates the development of an automated interviewing system that uses facial behavior as an indicator of the risk of given illicit behavior. Traditional facial emotion indicators of risk in semistructured dialogue may have limitations in an automated approach. However, an initial analysis of mock crime interviews suggests that the face may exhibit some form of rigidity during highly structured interviews. An interviewing system design using facial rigidity analysis was implemented and experimentally evaluated, the results of which further reveal that the rigidity is fairly generalized across the face. Whereas existing theory traditionally focuses on leakage of facial expressions, this study provides evidence that neutralization of facial expression may be a valuable alternative for automated interviewing systems. The proof-of-concept system in this study may help human risk assessment move beyond traditional boundaries, into fields such as auditing, emergency room management, and security screening.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2017.1393304

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our results confirm that questioning strategies which maximize cognitive burden can amplify signals of deception.

    “Our results confirm findings of previous research in face-to-face and remote person-to-person contexts that questioning strategies which maximize cognitive burden can amplify signals of deception (e.g., Bogaard et al., 2016; DePaulo et al., 2003; Pentland et al., 2017), highlighting the potential of remote automated CMC.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pentland, S. J., Twyman, N. W., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Diller, C. B. R.
Affiliations
  • Missouri University of Science and Technology (US)
  • University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Published
2017-10-02
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
970-993
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
OpenAlex
W2782393250
Cited by
35
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Center for Border Security and Immigration (BORDERS)
  • National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA)
  • Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR), a National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
risk assessment, semi-structured interviews, security screening

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review