The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring Neurophysiological Responses to Cross-Cultural Deepfake Videos
Open accessAbstract
Deepfake videos, which use artificial intelligence techniques to create realistic but fabricated footage, have raised concerns regarding their potential to deceive and manipulate viewers. This study is one of the first of its kind that aimed to investigate the cross-cultural perception of deepfakes and uncover potential neural markers associated with their detection. Electroencephalography (EEG) data were recorded from 10 healthy participants while they viewed three categories of videos: Asian people speaking Chinese (C-C), Asian people speaking English (C-E), and Middle Eastern people speaking English (A-E). Participants were asked to determine whether each video was real or fake. Behavioral analysis revealed that participants performed better in differentiating real and deepfake videos when the provided visual stimulus was in a language they were familiar with (English) and when the actor belonged to an ethnically similar background. EEG analysis demonstrated significant differences in brain signals between the three categories, suggesting the potential use of EEG as a biomarker for deepfake classification. Machine learning models achieved accuracies of up to 84.52% in categorizing the EEG data while observing real vs. fake videos, with Support Vector Machines. These findings contribute to our understanding of deepfake perception, have implications for the development of deepfake detection methods, and highlight the importance of media literacy in the face of digital deception.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In an EEG study (N=10), participants were more accurate in distinguishing between real and deepfake videos when the video actor was speaking in a language the participant understood and when the actor was of a similar ethnic background to the participants.
“Participants ( N = 10 ) were more accurate in distinguishing between real and deepfake videos when the video actor was speaking in a language that the participant understood (e.g., English) and when the video actor was of a similar ethnic background to the participants.”
From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
EEG data suggested notable differences in brain activity patterns related to the perception of authentic and deepfake videos.
“The EEG data suggested notable di ff erences in brain activity patterns related to the perception of authentic and deepfake videos [40].”
From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
People may be better at detecting deepfakes when the model is the same ethnicity as the detector or speaking a language the detector is familiar with.
“people may be better at detecting deepfakes when the model is the same ethnicity as the detector or speaking a language the detector is familiar with [40].”
From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Survey
Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.11138 · Cited by 863
The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Survey
Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3425780 · Cited by 863
DeepFakes: a New Threat to Face Recognition? Assessment and Detection
Korshunov, P., & Marcel, S. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.08685 · Cited by 497
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- David A Boas Clare E Elwell Marco Ferrari and Gentaro Taga. 2014. Twenty years of functional near-infrared spectroscopy: introduction for the special issue. 5 pages. · DOI
- 10.1145/3394171.3413630 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315669 · DOI
- Brian Dolhansky, Russ Howes, Ben Pflaum, Nicole Baram, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. 2019. The deepfake detection challenge (dfdc) preview dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08854 (2019). · arXiv
- 10.3389/fnhum.2021.705064 · DOI
- 10.1145/3382507.3418857 · DOI
- Kimberly T Mai, Sergi D Bray, Toby Davies, and Lewis D Griffin. 2023. Warning: Humans Cannot Reliably Detect Speech Deepfakes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07829 (2023). · arXiv
- Yuval Nirkin, Lior Wolf, Yosi Keller, and Tal Hassner. 2020. Deepfake detection based on the discrepancy between the face and its context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12262 (2020). · arXiv
- Konstantin A Pantserev. 2020. The malicious use of AI-based deepfake technology as the new threat to psychological security and political stability. Cyber defence in the age of AI, smart societies and augmented humanity (2020), 37–55.
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.004 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICIP42928.2021.9506082 · DOI
- 10.1145/3461615.3485397 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review
Somoray, K., Miller, D. J., & Holmes, M. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/1833228 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, M. R., Naeem, S., Tariq, U., Dhall, A., Khan, M. N. A., Al Shargie, F., & Al-Nashash, H.
- Affiliations
- American University of Sharjah (AE)
- Indian Institute of Technology Ropar (IN)
- Abu Dhabi University, United Arab Emirates
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Cconference on Multimodal Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-10-09
- Pages
- 41-45
- OpenAlex
- W4387446847
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 1.07
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American University of Sharjah (FRG21-M-E94)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- deepfake detection, deepfake videos, cross-cultural perception, EEG biomarkers, language familiarity, ethnic similarity, media literacy, digital deception, support vector machine
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