Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34880817›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Assessing Deception in Questionnaire Surveys With Eye-Tracking.

Xinyue Fang, Yiteng Sun, Xinyi Zheng, Xinrong Wang, Xuemei Deng, Mei Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xinyue FangSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yiteng SunSchool of Design, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Xinyi ZhengSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xinrong WangSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xuemei DengSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Mei WangSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deceit often occurs in questionnaire surveys, which leads to the misreporting of data and poor reliability. The purpose of this study is to explore whether eye-tracking could contribute to the detection of deception in questionnaire surveys, and whether the eye behaviors that appeared in instructed lying still exist in spontaneous lying. Two studies were conducted to explore eye movement behaviors in instructed and spontaneous lying conditions. The results showed that pupil size and fixation behaviors are both reliable indicators to detect lies in questionnaire surveys. Blink and saccade behaviors do not seem to predict deception. Deception resulted in increased pupil size, fixation count and duration. Meanwhile, respondents focused on different areas of the questionnaire when lying versus telling the truth. Furthermore, in the actual deception situation, the linear support vector machine (SVM) deception classifier achieved an accuracy of 74.09%. In sum, this study indicates the eye-tracking signatures of lying are not restricted to instructed deception, demonstrates the potential of using eye-tracking to detect deception in questionnaire surveys, and contributes to the questionnaire surveys of sensitive issues.

Indexed as

deceptioneye behavioreye-trackinglie detectionquestionnaire surveys

Identifiers

PMID34880817
PMCPMC8646095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.