Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41501543›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026

Is this real? Susceptibility to deepfakes in machines and humans.

Didem Pehlivanoglu, Mengdi Zhu, Jialong Zhen, Aude A Gagnon-Roberge, Rebecca K Kern, Damon Woodard, Brian S Cahill, Natalie C Ebner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Didem PehlivanogluDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA. dpehlivanoglu@ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9082-9976
Mengdi ZhuFlorida Institute for National Security, University of Florida, 601 Gale Lemerand Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Jialong ZhenDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA.
Aude A Gagnon-RobergeDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA.
Rebecca K KernDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA.
Damon WoodardFlorida Institute for National Security, University of Florida, 601 Gale Lemerand Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Brian S CahillDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA.
Natalie C EbnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA.

Funding

Characterizing and Modulating Neurocognitive Processes of Learning to Trust and Distrust in Aging (Diversity Supplement)R01AG072658 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Natalie C Ebner, Nichole Lighthall · 2022 to 2026
$3.6M
Uncovering and Surveilling Financial Deception Risk in Aging (Diversity Supplement to 1R01AG057764-01A1)R01AG057764 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI EBNER, NATALIE C, SPRENG, ROBERT NATHAN · 2018 to 2022
$2.5M
Florida Department of Health 22A10NIA NIH HHS 1R01AG057764NIA NIH HHS R01 AG057764NIA NIH HHS R01 AG072658NIA NIH HHS R01AG072658
6 · The paper itself

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

DeceptionFacial RecognitionMachine LearningAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleYoung AdultAnalytical thinkingArtificial intelligenceConfidenceDeceptionDeepfakesMachine learningTruth bias

Identifiers

PMID41501543
PMCPMC12779810

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.