How Human-Mouse Interaction can Accurately Detect Faked Responses About Identity

Identity verification is nowadays a very sensible issue. In this paper, we proposed a new tool focused on human-mouse interaction to detect fake responses about identity. Experimental results showed that this technique is able to detect fake responses about identities with an accuracy higher than 95%. In addition to a high sensitivity, the described methodology exceeds the limits of the biometric measures currently available for identity verification and the constraints of the traditional lie detection cognitive paradigms. Thanks to the many advantages offered by this technique, its application looks promising especially in field of national and global security as anti-terrorist measure. This paper represents an advancement in the knowledge of symbiotic systems demonstrating that human-machine interaction may be well integrated into security systems.

[1]  Eibe Frank,et al.  Logistic Model Trees , 2003, Machine Learning.

[2]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Sorting the liars from the truth tellers: the benefits of asking unanticipated questions on lie detection , 2013 .

[3]  Aspen H. Yoo,et al.  Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Julian Ashbourn,et al.  Biometrics: Advanced Identity Verification , 2000, Springer London.

[5]  Nobuhito Abe,et al.  How the Brain Shapes Deception , 2011, The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry.

[6]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Investigating the Effect of Insurance Fraud on Mouse Usage in Human-Computer Interactions , 2014, ICIS.

[7]  Thomas A. Farmer,et al.  Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[8]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[9]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[10]  Lior Rokach,et al.  User identity verification via mouse dynamics , 2012, Inf. Sci..

[11]  S. Sathiya Keerthi,et al.  Improvements to Platt's SMO Algorithm for SVM Classifier Design , 2001, Neural Computation.

[12]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  The reusable holdout: Preserving validity in adaptive data analysis , 2015, Science.

[13]  Andrew Beng Jin Teoh,et al.  A Survey of Keystroke Dynamics Biometrics , 2013, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[14]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  ID‐Check: Online Concealed Information Test Reveals True Identity , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.

[15]  Julian Ashbourn,et al.  Biometrics - advanced identity verification: the complete guide , 2000 .

[16]  Geoff Holmes,et al.  Benchmarking Attribute Selection Techniques for Discrete Class Data Mining , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[17]  Victor A. Gombos,et al.  The Cognition of Deception: The Role of Executive Processes in Producing Lies , 2006, Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs.

[18]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[19]  Ali Dehghantanha,et al.  A Review of Vulnerabilities in Identity Management Using Biometrics , 2010, 2010 Second International Conference on Future Networks.

[20]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Memory detection 2 . 0 : The first web-based memory detection test , 2018 .

[21]  B. Verschuere,et al.  Lying relies on the truth , 2014, Cognition.

[22]  Pat Langley,et al.  Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers , 1995, UAI.

[23]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  How to Accurately Detect Autobiographical Events , 2008, Psychological science.

[24]  Nicholas D. Duran,et al.  The action dynamics of overcoming the truth , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[25]  K. Flowers,et al.  Reaction Times and Deception - the Lying Constant , 2010 .