ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Is this real? Susceptibility to deepfakes in machines and humans.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Facial Attractiveness and Professional Acceptance Between Real and AI-Generated Orthodontic Treatment Outcome Images.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Human detection of AI-generated faces and voices is not domain-general.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Social Iowa Gambling Task: a promising tool for assessing deception detection in real-world contexts in adulthood.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026Article
- Voice clones sound realistic but not (yet) hyperrealistic.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deepfakes are synthetic media created by deep-generative methods to fake a person's audio-visual representation. Growing sophistication of deepfake technology poses significant challenges for both machine learning (ML) algorithms and humans. Here we used real and deepfake static face images (Study 1) and dynamic videos (Study 2) to (i) investigate sources of misclassification errors in machines, (ii) identify psychological mechanisms underlying detection performance in humans, and (iii) compare humans and machines in their classification decision accuracy and confidence. Study 1 found that machines achieved excellent performance in classifying real and deepfake images, with good accuracy in feature classification. Humans, in contrast, experienced challenges in distinguishing between real and deepfake static images. Their classification accuracy was at chance level, and this underperformance relative to machines was accompanied by a truth bias and low confidence for the detection of deepfake images. Using dynamic video stimuli, Study 2 found that performance of machines was near chance level, with poor feature classification. Further, machines showed greater lie bias and reduced decision confidence relative to humans who outperformed machines in the detection of video deepfakes. Finally, Study 2 revealed that higher analytical thinking, lower positive affect, and greater internet skills were associated with better video deepfake detection in humans. Combined, the findings across these two studies advance understanding of factors contributing to deepfake detection in both machines and humans; and can inform intervention toward tackling the growing threat from deepfakes by identifying areas of particular benefit from human-AI collaboration to optimize the detection of deepfakes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.