Detecting Intentional Errors Using the Pressures Applied to a Computer Mouse

  • Curtis Ikehara
  • Martha E. Crosby
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)


Intentional errors are considered a form of deceit. In this pilot study, the pressures applied to a computer mouse will be analyzed to determine if it is possible to detect intentional errors. Twenty participants ranging in age from 18 to 21 years performed a task involving intentionally making errors when instructed. A comparison will be made between the pressures applied to a computer mouse when answering the questions with the intention of being correct and with the intention of making an error. The data will need to be normalized for each individual to obtain accurate results. The analysis of the pressures may indicate that there are detectable variations within some individuals. Due to the preliminary nature of this study further research will be required.


Intentional errors deceit pressure sensitive computer mouse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bhatta, S., Mbwanab, J., Adeyemob, A., Sawyerb, A., Hailub, A., Van Meterb, J.: Lying about facial recognition: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition 69(2), 382–390 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gordon, N.J., Mohamed, F.B., Faro, P.S.: Integrated zone comparison polygraph technique accuracy with scoring algorithms. Physiology & Behavior 87, 251–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ford, E.B.: Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 29(3), 159–177 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., O’Sullivan, M.: Smiles when lying. Jnl. of Personality and Social Psychology 54(3), 414–420 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E.: Using Real-Time Physiological Monitoring for Assessing Cognitive States. In: Ghinea, G., Chen, S. (eds.) Digital Multimedia Perception and Design, ch. 8, pp. 170–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E., Chin, D.N.: A Suite of Physiological Sensors for Assessing Cognitive States. In: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (July 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E.: Assessing Cognitive Load with Physiological Sensors. In: 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (January 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walczyk, J.J., Roper, K.S., Seemann, E., Humphrey, A.M.: Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Lying to Questions: Response Time as a Cue to Deception. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 17, 755–774 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosby, M.E., Ikehara, C.S.: Biometric Technology for Human Identification Continuous Identity Authentication Using Multimodal Physiological Sensors. In: SPIE Defense and Security Symposium (April 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikehara, C., Crosby, M.E.: User Identification Based on the Analysis of the Forces Applied by a User to a Computer Mouse. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, Hawaii (January 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Curtis Ikehara
    • 1
  • Martha E. Crosby
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations