Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40089524›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Multimodal machine learning for deception detection using behavioral and physiological data.

Gargi Joshi, Vaibhav Tasgaonkar, Aditya Deshpande, Aditya Desai, Bhavya Shah, Akshay Kushawaha, Aadith Sukumar, Kermi Kotecha, Saumit Kunder, Yoginii Waykole and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

18 authors.

Gargi JoshiSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Vaibhav TasgaonkarSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Aditya DeshpandeSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Aditya DesaiSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Bhavya ShahSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Akshay KushawahaSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Aadith SukumarSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Kermi KotechaSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Saumit KunderSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Yoginii WaykoleSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Harsh MaheshwariSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India.
Abhijit DasCentre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Delhi, India.
Shubhashi GuptaCentre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Delhi, India.
Akanksha SubudhiCentre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Delhi, India.
Priyanka JainCentre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Delhi, India.
N K JainCentre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Delhi, India.
Rahee WalambeSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India. rahee.walambe@sitpune.edu.in.
Ketan KotechaSymbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune, India. director@sitpune.edu.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deception detection is crucial in domains like national security, privacy, judiciary, and courtroom trials. Differentiating truth from lies is inherently challenging due to many complex, diversified behavioural, physiological and cognitive aspects. Traditional lie detector tests (polygraphs) have been widely used but remain controversial due to scientific, ethical, and practical concerns. With advancements in machine learning, deception detection can be automated. However, existing secondary datasets are limited-they are small, unimodal, and predominantly based on non-Indian populations. To address these gaps, we present CogniModal-D, a primary real-world multimodal dataset for deception detection, specifically targeting the Indian population. It spans seven modalities-electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), eye-gaze, galvanic skin response (GSR), audio, and video-collected from over 100 subjects. The data was gathered through tasks focused on social relationships and controlled mock crime interrogations. Our multimodal AI-based score-level fusion approach integrates diverse verbal and nonverbal cues, significantly improving deception detection accuracy compared to unimodal methods. Performance improvements of up to 15% were observed in mock crime and best friend scenarios with multimodal fusion. Notably, behavioural modalities (audio, video, gaze, GSR) proved more robust than neurophysiological ones (EEG, ECG, EOG).The study demonstrates that multimodal features offer superior discriminatory power in deception detection. These insights highlight the pivotal role of integrating multiple modalities to develop robust, scalable, and advanced deception detection systems in the future.

Indexed as

DeceptionLie DetectionMachine LearningAdultElectrocardiographyElectroencephalographyElectrooculographyFemaleGalvanic Skin ResponseHumansIndiaMaleAffective computingAutomated deception detectionBehavioural dataCognitive behaviour analysisLie detectionMultimodal data fusionNeurophysiological data

Identifiers

PMID40089524
PMCPMC11910608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.