In-Game Motion Dynamics Provide a Means of Exploring the Cognitive Dynamics of Deception

User interfaces that produce an immersive and intuitive in-game experience depend on a strong coupling between user input and the motion of game objects. Such user interfaces require a high sensitivity to user movement that has the potential to reveal characteristics of user cognitive processes that occur during gameplay. The current project investigates whether cognitive processing during deception affects in-game motion. We present here two paradigms that allow deception to be expressed over repeated trials and in a naturalistic setting. The first, an interactive exhibit at Science Gallery Dublin™, tracked motion while users deceptively responded to autobiographical statements. The second, a two-player bluffing game, tracked motion during unsanctioned, motivated deception. Our findings indicate that in-game motion is influenced by the cognitive processes underlying deception. In-game motion provides an important source of data on human psychological processes that can stimulate theoretical progress within psychology and contribute to the development of more credible artificial agents.

[1]  H. Garavan,et al.  Dissociable Executive Functions in the Dynamic Control of Behavior: Inhibition, Error Detection, and Correction , 2002, NeuroImage.

[2]  Eric Seemann,et al.  Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: response time as a cue to deception , 2003 .

[3]  A. Marsters,et al.  Unmasking Identity: Speaker Profiling for Forensic Linguistic Purposes , 2015, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[4]  Julian Togelius,et al.  A Panorama of Artificial and Computational Intelligence in Games , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[5]  G. Ben-Shakhar,et al.  Lying Takes Time: A Meta-Analysis on Reaction Time Measures of Deception , 2017, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  Kenneth R. Paap,et al.  Functional Neuroimages Fail to Discover Pieces of Mind in the Parts of the Brain , 1997, Philosophy of Science.

[7]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Lying in everyday life. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[9]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Identifying Insider Threats through Monitoring Mouse Movements in Concealed Information Tests , 2013 .

[10]  Jeff Orkin,et al.  The Restaurant Game: Learning Social Behavior and Language from Thousands of Players Online , 2008, J. Game Dev..

[11]  Denis O'Hora,et al.  Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Gordon Calleja,et al.  Revising Immersion: A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Digital Game Involvement , 2007, DiGRA Conference.

[13]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. , 1998, Science.

[14]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Sam Redfern Player-Traced Empirical Cost-Surfaces for A* Pathfinding , 2011 .

[16]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[17]  Kim B. Serota,et al.  A Few Prolific Liars , 2015 .

[18]  Felix Henninger,et al.  Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[19]  G. V. van Orden,et al.  Self-organization of cognitive performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Action Dynamics Reveal Parallel Competition in Decision Making , 2008, Psychological science.

[21]  T. Gelder,et al.  Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition , 1995 .

[22]  Michael A. Riley,et al.  Learning From the Body About the Mind , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[23]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding Our Horizon with a Working Memory Model , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[24]  D. Gilbert How mental systems believe. , 1991 .

[25]  A. Gregg When vying reveals lying: the timed antagonistic response alethiometer , 2007 .

[26]  Francisco Lacerda,et al.  Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously , 2007 .

[27]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[28]  A Zgonnikov,et al.  Decision landscapes: visualizing mouse-tracking data , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.

[29]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition , 2006 .

[30]  Simone Sulpizio,et al.  Analyzing spatial data from mouse tracker methodology: An entropic approach , 2017, Behavior research methods.

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

[32]  Ewout H. Meijer,et al.  Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty. , 2016, Psychophysiology.

[33]  Jeremy R. Reynolds,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Transient and Sustained Cognitive Control during Task Switching , 2003, Neuron.

[34]  Luciano Gamberini,et al.  The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and mouse dynamics , 2017, PloS one.

[35]  Richard Hill,et al.  The Use of Crowdsourcing to Aid Quest Design in Games , 2012, 2012 Third International Conference on Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies.

[36]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Detecting deception through reaction times , 2015 .

[37]  Tobias Egner,et al.  Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control , 2005, NeuroImage.

[38]  Jennifer M. C. Vendemia,et al.  Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception. , 2005, The American journal of psychology.

[39]  Magy Seif El-Nasr,et al.  Analysis of telemetry data from a real-time strategy game: A case study , 2012, CIE.