Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757928›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Deception detection with machine learning: A systematic review and statistical analysis.

Alex Sebastião Constâncio, Denise Fukumi Tsunoda, Helena de Fátima Nunes Silva, Jocelaine Martins da Silveira, Deborah Ribeiro Carvalho

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mining Bodily Cues to Deception.Journal of nonverbal behavior · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Alex Sebastião ConstâncioPPGGI, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8725-4481
Denise Fukumi TsunodaPPGGI, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil.
Helena de Fátima Nunes SilvaPPGGI, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil.
Jocelaine Martins da SilveiraPPGPSI, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil.
Deborah Ribeiro CarvalhoPPGTS, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies applying Machine Learning to deception detection have been published in the last decade. A rich and complex set of settings, approaches, theories, and results is now available. Therefore, one may find it difficult to identify trends, successful paths, gaps, and opportunities for contribution. The present literature review aims to provide the state of research regarding deception detection with Machine Learning. We followed the PRISMA protocol and retrieved 648 articles from ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science. 540 of them were screened (108 were duplicates). A final corpus of 81 documents has been summarized as mind maps. Metadata was extracted and has been encoded as Python dictionaries to support a statistical analysis scripted in Python programming language, and available as a collection of Jupyter Lab Notebooks in a GitHub repository. All are available as Jupyter Lab Notebooks. Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, Decision Tree and K-nearest Neighbor are the five most explored techniques. The studies report a detection performance ranging from 51% to 100%, with 19 works reaching accuracy rate above 0.9. Monomodal, Bimodal, and Multimodal approaches were exploited and achieved various accuracy levels for detection. Bimodal and Multimodal approaches have become a trend over Monomodal ones, although there are high-performance examples of the latter. Studies that exploit language and linguistic features, 75% are dedicated to English. The findings include observations of the following: language and culture, emotional features, psychological traits, cognitive load, facial cues, complexity, performance, and Machine Learning topics. We also present a dataset benchmark. Main conclusions are that labeled datasets from real-life data are scarce. Also, there is still room for new approaches for deception detection with Machine Learning, especially if focused on languages and cultures other than English-based. Further research would greatly contribute by providing new labeled and multimodal datasets for deception detection, both for English and other languages.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerResearch DesignDeceptionMachine LearningPublications

Identifiers

PMID36757928
PMCPMC9910662

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.