ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Looking to Deceive: Voluntary Gaze Control Reduces the Discriminative Power of Eye-Movement-Based Concealed Information Testing.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The Concealed Information Test (CIT) detects whether an individual recognizes crime-relevant information, and eye tracking has been proposed as a non-invasive method for detecting this recognition. It remains unclear, however, whether individuals who are motivated to conceal their knowledge can voluntarily control their gaze and thereby undermine the test's validity. We developed a novel free-viewing, parallel-presentation eye-movement-based CIT and administered it to 75 participants randomly assigned to three groups: Innocent, Informed Innocent, and Guilty. For each participant, twelve eye-tracking measures were calculated as differential (crime-relevant minus control) scores and analyzed using four supervised classifiers under a participant-wise, leave-two-out cross-validation, with accuracy reported at both the trial and participant levels. Cumulative dwell- and duration-based measures, together with glance and fixation counts, carried most of the discriminative signal. The classifiers demonstrated high accuracy when distinguishing between the naive and knowledgeable but non-concealing individuals, as well as between knowledgeable non-concealing individuals and culpable individuals. However, classification performance fell to chance-level probability when distinguishing naive and culpable individuals. Thus, participants who were motivated to avoid detection markedly reduced their distinctive eye-movement signature with voluntary gaze control, becoming indistinguishable from truly naive individuals. We discuss methodological implications for designing eye-movement-based CITs that exhibit greater resilience against voluntary gaze modulation.
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.