Cited by 10Deception detection and forensic psychologyUser Authentication and Security SystemsAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting Liars in Chats using Keystroke Dynamics

Borj, Parisa Rezaee, Bours, Patrick·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Biometric Engineering and Applications

Abstract

In this paper we will investigate the possibilities for detecting liars in chat rooms who have taken on a different identity. While using a different identity people might require more time to reply to questions of the chat partner, or might use corrections to change their text to avoid inconsistencies in their answers. These issues will cause differences in the typing behavior, which can be measured in the typing rhythm. We have shown in this paper that, with a high accuracy, we can distinguish between a chat of a person who uses his/her own identity and is honest in his/her answers, and a chat of a person who is lying because his/her answers need to be consistent to an assumed identity. We obtained a correct classification of a single message in a chat with an accuracy of more than 70% and a correct classification of a full chat with well over 90% accuracy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3345336.3345337

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Borj and Bours used KD feature vectors to detect authors that lied about their demographic information, such as age and gender, in chat conversations.

    “Borj and Bours [50] used KD feature vectors to detect authors that lied about their demographic information, such as age and gender, in chat conversations.”
  • Predators might conceal the gender or age while making initial contact.

    “For example, they might conceal the gender or age while making initial contact [48,50].”
  • Predators often use a fake identity while online searching for potential victims.

    “It is known that predators often use a fake identity while online searching for potential victims.”
  • Despite syntactic complexity correlating with the deceiver's age, some research studies demonstrated that deceivers can create less complex sentences for grooming purposes.

    “For instance, despite syntactic complexity correlating with the deceiver's age, some research studies demonstrated that deceivers can create less complex sentences for grooming purposes [50,158,159].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.3115/v1/D14-1155 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/2449396.2449426 · DOI
  3. D.B. Buller and J. K Burgoon . 1996. Interpersonal deception theory. Communication theory, 6(3):203--242 , 1996 . D.B. Buller and J. K Burgoon. 1996. Interpersonal deception theory. Communication theory, 6(3):203--242, 1996.
  4. 10.1145/2499962.2499967 · DOI
  5. P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen. 1969. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 3281):88--106 1969. P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen. 1969. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 3281):88--106 1969. · DOI · Paper page
  6. G.M. Grimes , J.L. Jenkins , and J.S. Valacich . 2013. Assessing credibility by monitoring changes in typing behavior: the keystroke dynamics deception detection model . In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Deception Detection Symposium , 2013 . G.M. Grimes, J.L. Jenkins, and J.S. Valacich. 2013. Assessing credibility by monitoring changes in typing behavior: the keystroke dynamics deception detection model. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Deception Detection Symposium, 2013.
  7. 10.1109/HSI.2013.6577879 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1109/HSI.2015.7170682 · DOI · Paper page
  9. M. Monaro C. Galante R. Spolaor Q.Q. Li L. Gamberini M. Conti and G. Sartori. 2018. Covert lie detection using keyboard dynamics. Scientific reports 8(1) page 1976 2018. M. Monaro C. Galante R. Spolaor Q.Q. Li L. Gamberini M. Conti and G. Sartori. 2018. Covert lie detection using keyboard dynamics. Scientific reports 8(1) page 1976 2018. · DOI
  10. S. Mondal , P. Bours , L. Johansen , R. Stenvi , and M. Øverbø . 2017. Importance of a Versatile Logging Tool for Behavioural Biometrics and Continuous Authentication Research , chapter 13, pages 282 -- 305 . IGI Global , 2017 . S. Mondal, P. Bours, L. Johansen, R. Stenvi, and M. Øverbø. 2017. Importance of a Versatile Logging Tool for Behavioural Biometrics and Continuous Authentication Research, chapter 13, pages 282--305. IGI Global, 2017.
  11. 10.1145/3099023.3099105 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00010-0 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.diin.2018.01.018 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.4018/IJDCF.2017010101 · DOI · Paper page
  15. B. van Bockstaele B. Verschuere T. Moens K. Suchotzki E. Debey and A. Spruyt. 2012. Learning to lie: effects of practice on the cognitive cost of lying. Frontiers in psychology 3:256 2012. B. van Bockstaele B. Verschuere T. Moens K. Suchotzki E. Debey and A. Spruyt. 2012. Learning to lie: effects of practice on the cognitive cost of lying. Frontiers in psychology 3:256 2012. · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.335 · DOI
  17. B. Verschuere , and J. de Houwer . 2011. Detecting concealed information in less than a second: response latency-based measures. Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test , pages 46 -- 62 , 2011 . B. Verschuere, and J. de Houwer. 2011. Detecting concealed information in less than a second: response latency-based measures. Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test, pages 46--62, 2011. · DOI
  18. 10.1177/0963721410391245 · DOI
  19. J. J. Walczyk F.D. Igou L.P. Dixon and T. Tcholakian. 2013. Advancing Lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in psychology 4:14 2013. J. J. Walczyk F.D. Igou L.P. Dixon and T. Tcholakian. 2013. Advancing Lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in psychology 4:14 2013. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Borj, P. R., & Bours, P.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Biometric Engineering and Applications
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-05-29
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W2969677212
Cited by
10
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Biometric Engineering and Applications (ICBEA) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
deception detection, keystroke dynamics, online chat, chat rooms, identity deception, typing behavior, typing rhythm, text correction

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