Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 34, Issue 7, pp 1182–1189 | Cite as

Facial Skin Surface Temperature Changes During a “Concealed Information” Test

  • Dean A. Pollina
  • Andrew B. Dollins
  • Stuart M. Senter
  • Troy E. Brown
  • Ioannis Pavlidis
  • James A. Levine
  • Andrew H. Ryan
Article

When individuals who commit a crime are questioned, they often show involuntary physiological responses to remembered details of that crime. This phenomenon is the basis for the concealed information test, in which rarely occurring crime-related details are embedded in a series of more frequently occurring crime-irrelevant items while respiratory, cardiovascular, and electrodermal responses are recorded. Two experiments were completed to investigate the feasibility of using facial skin surface temperature (SST) measures recorded using high definition thermographic images as the physiological measure during a concealed information test. Participants were randomly assigned to nondeceptive or deceptive groups. Deceptive participants completed a mock-crime paradigm. A focal plane array thermal imaging radiometer was used to monitor SST while crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant items were verbally presented to each participant. During both experiments, there were significant facial SST differences between deceptive and nondeceptive participants early in the analysis interval. In the second experiment, hemifacial (i.e., “half-face” divided along the longitudinal axis) effects were combined with the bilateral responses to correctly classify 91.7% of participants. These results suggest that thermal image analysis can be effective in discriminating deceptive and nondeceptive individuals during a concealed information test.

Keywords

Imaging/Infrared thermography Behavior/Physiologic behavior Polygraph Face temperature 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Kay Williams, Betty Rodriguez, and Rose Swinford of the DoDPI Research Staff for their assistance with data collection procedures. We would also like to thank Gordon Barland, Esther Harwell, Ron Kiefer, and Don Krapohl, all of whom administered the polygraph exams to our study participants. We are also grateful to Johnnie Rodgerson for his advice concerning instructions given to deceptive participants. This project was funded by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute as project numbers DoDPI00-P-0011 and DoDPI02-P-0012. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Drummond, P., and J. Lance. Facial flushing and sweating mediated by the sympathetic nervous system. Brain 110:793–803, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ekman, P. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ekman, P., W. Friesen, and S. Ancoli. Facial signs of emotional experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39:1125–1134, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekman, P., W. Friesen, and P. Ellsworth. Emotion in the Human Face. Elmsford NY: Pergamon Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekman, P., J. Hager, and W. Friesen. The symmetry of emotional and deliberate facial actions. Psychophysiology 18:101–106, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekman, P., R. Levenson, and W. Friesen. Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science 22:1208–1210, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekman, P., and M. O’Sullivan. Who can catch a liar. Am. Psychol. 46:913–920, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elaad, E., and G. Ben-Shakhar. Effects of motivation and verbal response type on psychophysiological detection of information. Psychophysiology 26:442–451, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox, R., R. Goldsmith, and D. Kidd. Cutaneous vasomotor control in the human head, neck, and upper chest. J Physiol. 161:298–312, 1962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furedy, J. J., and G. Ben-Shakhar. The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge. Psychophysiology 28:163–171, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furedy, J. J., C. Davis, and M. Gurevich. Differentiation of deception as a psychological process: A psychophysiological approach. Psychophysiology 25:683–688, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorbach, A. M. Infrared imaging of brain function. In: Optical Imaging of Brain Function and Metabolism, edited by U. Dirnagl, A. Villringer, and K. M. Einhaupl. New York: Plenum Press, 1993, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grayson, J. Responses of the microcirculation to hot and cold environments. In: Thermoregulation: Physiology and Biochemistry, edited by W. C. Bowman, E. Schönbaum, and P. Lomax. New York: Pergamon Press, 1990, pp. 221–234.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horneman, C. J., and J. G. O’Gorman. Detectability in the card test as a function of the subject's verbal response. Psychophysiology 22:330–333, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iacono, W. G., G. Boisvenu, and J. A. Fleming. Effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge. J. Appl. Psychol. 69:289–299, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kleinmuntz, B., and J. J. Szucko. Lie detection in ancient and modern times. Am. Psychol. 39:766–776, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lieblich, I. Manipulation of contrast between differential GSR responses through the use of ordered tasks of information detection. Psychophysiology 6:70–77, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lieblich, I., S. Kugelmass, and G. Ben-Shakhar. Efficiency of GSR detection of information as a function of stimulus set size. Psychophysiology 6:601–608, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lykken, D. T. The GSR in the detection of guilt. J. Appl. Psychol. 43:385–388, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lykken, D. T. The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. J. Appl. Psychol. 44:258–262, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pavlidis, I., N. L. Eberhardt, and J. Levine. Human behavior: Seeing through the face of deception. Nature 415:35, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seymour, T. L., M. Shafto, and A. L. Mosmann. Using response time measures to assess “Guilty Knowledge.” J. Appl. Psychol. 85:30–37, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sokolov, E. Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. New York: Macmillan, 1963.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sokolov, E., and Cacioppo, J. “Orienting and defense reflexes: vector coding the cardiac response”. In: Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes, edited by P. Lang, R. Simons, and M. Balaban. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, pp 1–22.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SPSS Inc. SPSS Regression Models 10.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yankee, W. J. An investigation of sphygmomanometer discomfort thresholds in polygraph examinations. Police 9:12–18, 1965.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., and M. Inglehart. Feeling and facial efference: Implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychol. Rev. 96:395–416, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean A. Pollina
    • 1
    • 4
  • Andrew B. Dollins
    • 1
  • Stuart M. Senter
    • 1
  • Troy E. Brown
    • 1
  • Ioannis Pavlidis
    • 2
  • James A. Levine
    • 3
  • Andrew H. Ryan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Defense Polygraph InstituteFort JacksonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Mayo Clinic, Endocrine Research UnitDepartment of MedicineRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Research Division, Department of Defense Polygraph InstituteFort JacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations