Martin Zembaty’s scientific contributions

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (1)


Figure 2: Close up frames for the stimuli of PEFS [69] and three examples for the stimuli from FaceForensics [58] (bottom right) used in our experiments. Here, each frame contains an annotation of the gender (F or M) of the source actors noted as body/face.
Figure 3: Artifacts reported by participants for high and low quality face swaps.
Figure 4: Example frames for the stimuli used in experiment E3 to assess the recognition accuracy as well as intensity and sincerity ratings for original and face swap videos.
Figure 5: E1: Average correct assessment percentages among videos and participants for each condition (left). A high rate indicates that videos were correctly reported as either artifact-free (Real) or containing artifacts/ manipulations (Swap). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Reported artifact occurrences for all videos (middle). Reported face manipulations included face swaps, partial face alterations and beauty flters. Facial areas reported to be afected by artifacts over all videos (right). Please note that the color legend is common to all plots.
Figure 6: Exemplar frame with the areas of interest (Eyes, Mouth, Nose, Contour) used to analyze the eye tracking fxations.

+4

Towards Understanding Perceptual Differences between Genuine and Face-Swapped Videos
  • Conference Paper
  • Full-text available

March 2021

·

425 Reads

·

24 Citations

·

Martin Zembaty

·

·

Marcus Magnor

In this paper, we report on perceptual experiments indicating that there are distinct and quantitatively measurable differences in the way we visually perceive genuine versus face-swapped videos. Recent progress in deep learning has made face-swapping techniques a powerful tool for creative purposes, but also a means for unethical forgeries. Currently, it remains unclear why people are misled, and which indicators they use to recognize potential manipulations. Here, we conduct three perceptual experiments focusing on a wide range of aspects: the conspicuousness of artifacts, the viewing behavior using eye tracking, the recognition accuracy for different video lengths, and the assessment of emotions. Our experiments show that responses differ distinctly when watching manipulated as opposed to original faces, from which we derive perceptual cues to recognize face swaps. By investigating physiologically measurable signals, our findings yield valuable insights that may also be useful for advanced algorithmic detection.

Download

Citations (1)


... Several interactive tools have been developed to support different tasks, such as processing medical images [28], transferring text data into graph [29], and time-series data [30]. There are also user interface (UI) designs for supporting model developers and users, e.g., in natural language processing (NLP) [31], face recognition [32], computer vision [33], [34], and real-time games [35]. Some designs consider not only the tasks in ML workflows but also the people who use interactive visualization facilities (e.g., [36]). ...

Reference:

TA3: Testing Against Adversarial Attacks on Machine Learning Models
Towards Understanding Perceptual Differences between Genuine and Face-Swapped Videos