finding the truth: interview and interrogation training simulations
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC)2011 under the Hidden in Plain Sight:Training Perceptual Skills session.TRANSCRIPT
Finding the Truth: Interview and Interrogation Training Simulations
Janet Mulkern
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Ronald Punako, Jr.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
• Welcome!• Instructional Systems Design
– Intended Audience– Design Considerations– Commonalities of Instructional Design
• Simulation – Visual and Interaction– Interview System– Interrogation System
Topics
2
Our Purpose
Interview a Child Interrogate a Suspect
Creating interview and interrogation
Immersive Learning Simulations (ILS)
3
Intended Audience
• The interview training system was designed as capstone experience.
• The interrogation training system was designed for Special Agents with little or no interviewing or interrogating suspects of major crimes.
• The audiences include mostly male individuals between 18-40 years of age.
4
Design Considerations
• Predominant Millennial learners (1982-2002):– Predominant training question to answer is: “How do we do it?”
(Coomes and DeBard, 2004)– The “Net Generation.”
• Instructional strategies support the learner’s needs as described by Svinicki (1999): – Provide reinforcement for activities you wish to encourage such
as praise and positive feedback. – Emphasize internal reinforcement and motivation. – Set challenging yet attainable goals for learning, and provide
feedback on progress.
5
Kinesics
• “The study of nonlinguistic bodily movements”– Communication is 93% body language and paralinguistic cues
(including pitch, volume and tone)– Words only provide 7% of the communication. (Borg, 2009)
6
Commonalities of Instructional Design
• Challenges: – Recognition of behavioral indicators of abuse– Recognition of Kinesic indicators of truth or deception.
• Models: – Scenarios were modeled after a session by an experienced
investigator and expert instructor. – Correct answers are based on real-life experiences and
consequences.
7
Commonalities of Instructional Design (Continued)
• Controls: – System’s graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were designed to
include a number of controls. – In the interrogation training system an additional control was
added where the learner can acquire points to increase the motivation to “win” by obtaining the most points.
• Manipulation: – The learner controls the interview and interrogation by asking the
right question, reading the non-verbal indicators correctly and then asking the next question correctly.
– Depending on how poorly the learner asks the question, the consequences become more severe.
8
Commonalities of Instructional Design (Continued)
• Authenticity: – Written from case material– Reviewed by the internal SMEs and the client for authenticity of
content and interaction.
• Consequences: – If the learner does not pay attention to and adapt their line of
questioning to the suspects non-verbal signs, the subject avatar is designed to shut down the interview and ask for a lawyer.
– To the learner, the course consequences are passing or failing.
9
Interview System
• Goals• Subject• Environment• Simulation of Body Language• Simulation of Facial Expression• Proxemics• Attention to Child’s Needs
10
Interview ILS Goals
• Develop a proof-of-concept simulation to train investigators to conduct interviews of child abuse victims.
• Develop a training scenario to benefit interagency organizations for both military and civilian applications.
• Provide a virtual interactive training module avatar system, with all necessary motion and appearance to project the behavioral indicators of abuse.
• Enable investigators to practice interviewing child abuse victims and to receive feedback after the training has reached completion.
11
Subject: Cynthia Baker
12
Physical profile• 6 years old• Petite• Brown hair• Brown eyes
Environment: Child’s Interview Room
13
Playroom environment• Sofa, adult chairs, child
chairs• Toys
• Posters• One way glass
Simulation of Body Language
14
Shrugging off Coloring
Casual dialogue Closing off/hiding
Challenge: Communicate emotional state using body language
• Designed 20 animations to communicate emotional state
• Body animations designed to be blended across 2 layers including idle and emotive
Simulation of Facial Expression
15
Happy
Challenge: Attempt to accurately portray facial expression
•Designed for sadness, fear, anger, indignant, disgust, happiness, confusion and shame across 4 layers including: blink, idle, lip-sync and emotive•Selected expressions modeled after Facial Action Coding System action unit combinations.
Angry
Proxemics
• First question deals with seating arrangements relative to Cynthia
16
• Experimented with the Xbox 360 Kinect controller to provide proxemics
Attention to Cynthia’s Needs
Challenge: Simulating the
special needs of a child
interviewee
• Talking at the child’s level• Sitting at the child’s level• Paying attention to the
child's special needs (requests for mother, playing and coloring)
17
Playing under the table
Interrogation System
• Subject• Environment• Simulation of Body Language• Simulation of Voluntary Facial Expression• Simulation of Micro Expression• Detection of Micro Expression• Continuation of Disposition/Personality
18
Interrogation ILS Goals
• Develop a proof-of-concept simulation to train investigators to conduct interrogation of criminals suspected of sexual assault.
• Develop scenarios that can be manipulated to provide challenging interrogation exercises that are real and relevant to the current threat of perpetrators of serious crimes against persons.
19
Subject: Sergeant Mike Hagan
Physical profile• 30 years old• 71 inches• 156 lbs• Brown hair• Brown eyes
Criminal record• First time offender
20
Environment: Interrogation Room
21
Minimalist design• One table • Security Camera• Two chairs
Simulation of Body Language
22
Shrugging off Stop pressuring me
Defensive rebuke Closing off/hiding
Challenge: Communicate
emotional state using body
language
• Designed 35 animations to communicate emotional state
• Body animations designed to be blended across 2 layers including idle and emotive
Simulation of Voluntary Facial Expression
23
Happy Angry
Worried Disgusted
Challenge: Attempt to accuratelyportray facial expression with ahigh-fidelity model.
• Designed for sadness, fear, anger, contempt, disgust,happiness and surprise across 4 layers including: blink, idle, lip-sync and emotive
• Selected expressions modeled after Facial Action Coding System action unit combinations.
Simulation of Micro Expressions
Challenge: Can the architecture
handle extremely fast animation
transitions and blending?
• Designed for sadness, fear, anger, contempt, disgust,happiness and surprise
• Achieved required 1/25 secondmicro expression duration.
24
Worried micro expression
Detection of Micro Expressions
Challenge: How to integrate a
micro expression mini-game into
the simulation?
• A possible micro expression occurs while a detect button is shown
• Not a test of dexterity• False-positives possible.
25
Worried micro expression
Continuation of Disposition/Personality
26
Disposition Threshold Disposition Visual Output
5+ Angry/Uncooperative
2-4 Upset
0-1 Idle/Cooperative
Disposition Modifiers(First time offender)
Red = +1Yellow = +0Green = -1
Disposition Modifiers(Repeat offender)
Red = -1Yellow = +0Green = +1
Common Design Elements: Decision Sequencing
• Linear - sequencing of events with no opportunity for deviation from sequence trunk.
• Branching - sequencing of events that allows deviation from the sequence trunk.
• Recursive – revisit previous events.
• Any order – events presented in a discreet group in any order.
27
Common Design Elements: Decision Making
28
Select a response which would help assess the child’s episodic memory level.
A. You were telling me about your Christmas. (Green = Best)B.I’ll bet Christmas day was fun, right? (Yellow = Average)C.Specifically, where were you and what did you do Christmas day. (Red = Poor)
Common Design Elements: Performance Scoring
29
Learner makes a choice Score is averaged by objective and recoded
Final score is averaged across objective scores
Objective 1: 50%Objective 2: 100%…
Final: 75%1. Choice A
2. Choice B3. Choice C
Learner makes a choice Feedback is recorded by objective.
Feedback is provided to learner
Objective 1: Good Job! …
Good Job! You chose choice A. Choice A was best because…
1. Choice A2. Choice B3. Choice C
Quantitative
Qualitative
Common Design Elements: Confession or Disclosure
Challenge: How tosimulate a meaningfulconfession/disclosure?
• Culminating point in final act
• Reached through majority green and yellow path decisions
• Must avoid terminal red path decisions
30
Common Design Elements: Notebook
Challenge: How to provide the learner with an effective record of kinesics exhibited?
•Running log of all kinesics, dialogue, choices, decisions and mentor feedback•Designed for learner reflection, performance review and memory/analysis aid
31
Common Design Elements: After Action Review
Summary Panel• Rollup of objectives• Scored or un-scored against
objective thresholds
Details Panel• For each decision displays screen
shot, decision response, related objective and mentor feedback
32
Technical and Integration Details
• Work with internal and client SME to develop a script that details what content (objectives, voice over, feedback, remediation, interactivity, others) to integrate
• Staff works to produce content
• Custom development pipeline built on the Unity Game Development Tool supports integration of content
• Simulations currently deployed to Web, PC, Mac, iPad
33
Next Steps
• System to be evaluated for a Certificate of Networthiness
• Pursuing evaluation by learners at Fort Leonard Wood, MO
• Advanced feature integration– Full implementation of continuation of disposition/personality– Implementation of motion capture for Proxemics– Photo-realistic body language and facial expression– Improve development pipeline
• Evaluate potential for application in broader industry.
34
Questions
Questions ?
35