4.5 Article

Real and Deepfake Face Recognition: An EEG Study on Cognitive and Emotive Implications

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13091233

关键词

face recognition; deepfakes; emotions; power spectrum; event-related potentials (ERPs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the cognitive and emotional engagement of healthy individuals in a visual discrimination task involving real and deepfake human faces. Results suggest that different brain areas show statistically significant activations depending on the authenticity and emotional content of the stimuli.
The human brain's role in face processing (FP) and decision making for social interactions depends on recognizing faces accurately. However, the prevalence of deepfakes, AI-generated images, poses challenges in discerning real from synthetic identities. This study investigated healthy individuals' cognitive and emotional engagement in a visual discrimination task involving real and deepfake human faces expressing positive, negative, or neutral emotions. Electroencephalographic (EEG) data were collected from 23 healthy participants using a 21-channel dry-EEG headset; power spectrum and event-related potential (ERP) analyses were performed. Results revealed statistically significant activations in specific brain areas depending on the authenticity and emotional content of the stimuli. Power spectrum analysis highlighted a right-hemisphere predominance in theta, alpha, high-beta, and gamma bands for real faces, while deepfakes mainly affected the frontal and occipital areas in the delta band. ERP analysis hinted at the possibility of discriminating between real and synthetic faces, as N250 (200-300 ms after stimulus onset) peak latency decreased when observing real faces in the right frontal (LF) and left temporo-occipital (LTO) areas, but also within emotions, as P100 (90-140 ms) peak amplitude was found higher in the right temporo-occipital (RTO) area for happy faces with respect to neutral and sad ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据