ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating eye-tracking as a method for deception detection against the polygraph as deployed in practice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Looking to Deceive: Voluntary Gaze Control Reduces the Discriminative Power of Eye-Movement-Based Concealed Information Testing.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Can credibility assessment be based on methods more reliable than those currently used? Traditional polygraph examinations, although widely employed, have well-documented limitations, motivating the search for alternative, noninvasive approaches. In this study, we developed an eye-tracking-based method to detect concealed memory traces by analyzing patterns of eye movements during a Concealed Information Test. Unlike previous research that examined eye movements in isolation, we directly compared the performance of the eye-tracking method with polygraph measurements within the same participants and under identical experimental conditions. Key features extracted from eye movements were used in a machine learning classifier to distinguish between deceptive and truthful responses. The results show that our eye-tracking-based test can effectively discriminate between deceptive and truthful individuals, achieving an accuracy of 94.9%. In comparison, polygraph examinations accurately classified 88.2% of participants under the same conditions, though five recordings had to be excluded because the polygraph expert could not reach a definitive conclusion. Finally, this study also considers the advantages and limitations of the two approaches, as well as ethical concerns related to measuring involuntary responses and using "black box" scoring algorithms.
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.