CLOSE
Original image
Sophie Nightingale / University of Warwick

Can You Spot Which Photo Is Fake? Most People Can’t

Original image
Sophie Nightingale / University of Warwick

In a digital world, it’s easier than ever to fool people. Sophisticated Photoshop jobs, social media, and viral news cycles mislead readers into mistaking shots from a Lebanese music video for real scenes of destruction from Aleppo, thinking that Vladimir Putin was the center of attention at the G-20 summit, or believing that Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe posed together for a photo shoot in the park.

While it would be nice to tell ourselves that we would never be duped by such fake images, the truth is, most people can’t distinguish between a manipulated photo and a real one. That’s the takeaway from a new study in Cognitive Research: Principle and Implications. As the team at Science reports, the participants were only able to pinpoint fake images two-thirds of the time.

First, psychologists from the University of Warwick asked more than 700 volunteers to look at real and fake images and identify the changes. The researchers used 10 color photographs sourced from Google searches, manipulating them through airbrushing, adding elements in, subtracting elements, and distorting shadows, and shearing trees. They applied each of these five manipulation techniques separately to a portion of the photos, eventually creating 30 manipulated photos and 10 real ones. All the participants saw one of each of the manipulation types in different photos.

An older man stands in the street in front of a house.
Can you spot the differences between the manipulated image at the top of the page and the original version above?
Sophie Nightingale / University of Warwick

The participants performed slightly above chance rates, identifying photos correctly as real only 58 percent of the time and spotting manipulations 66 percent of the time. Even when they did identify a manipulated photo, though, they didn’t necessarily know where it had been altered.

In a second study, the researchers did the same thing, but using photos study co-author Sophie J. Nightingale took with her Nikon camera, controlling for the fact that images found online could be manipulated before the researchers even downloaded them. They then had almost 660 people take an online survey testing their ability to spot fakes. They had to look at photos and label whether it was fake and if they could see where it was manipulated, whether it was fake but they didn’t know where it had been altered, or whether it was an original. At the end of the study, the subjects identified just 62 percent of the fake images correctly.

Woman standing outside
The first image is the original. The second was manipulated to add in a water spout, airbrush the woman's face, and make other slight changes.
Sophie Nightingale / University of Warwick

The results were the same regarding images that had been manipulated in both overtly unrealistic ways and photos that featured more plausible changes. One reason might be the way that our visual system simplifies information. As long as object geometries and shadows are roughly correct, our eyes accept them as accurate.

“It remains to be determined whether it is possible to train people to make use of physically implausible inconsistencies,” the researchers write. “Perhaps one possibility would entail ‘teaching' the visual system to make full use of physical properties of the world as opposed to automatically simplifying them.”

You can still take a 10-minute online survey for the project here and test your own manipulation awareness skills. (I had to take wild guesses on most of them.)

If this makes you weep for the future of the world, at least know that it’s a timeless problem. Manipulated, misleading images have been around since the earliest days of photography.

[h/t Science]

Original image
iStock
arrow
environment
Environmental Pollution Is Deadlier Than Smoking, War, AIDS or Hunger, Experts Find
Original image
iStock

In 1970, Congress pushed forward the Clean Air Act, which took aggressive steps to monitor and control pollutants in the environment via federal regulations. Over the years, people living in the United States have been exposed to considerably fewer contaminants such as lead and carbon monoxide.

But as a new study in the Lancet medical journal points out, pollution continues to be a global crisis, and one that might carry a far more devastating mortality rate than previously believed. Analyzing the complete picture of contaminated regions around the globe, study authors believe pollution killed 9 million people in 2015—more than smoking, AIDS, war, or deaths from hunger.

The study’s authors aggregated premature deaths on a global basis that were attributable to pollution, singling out certain regions that continue to struggle with high concentrations of toxic materials. In India, one in four premature deaths (2.5 million) was related to environmental contamination. In China, 1.8 million people died due to illnesses connected to poor air quality.

A lack of regulatory oversight in these areas is largely to blame. Dirty fossil fuels, crop burning, and burning garbage plague India; industrial growth in other locations often leads to pollution that isn’t being monitored or controlled. Roughly 92 percent of deaths as a result of poor environmental conditions are in low- or middle-income countries [PDF].

The study also notes that the 9 million estimate is conservative and likely to rise as new methods of connecting pollution-related illness with mortality in a given area are discovered. It’s hoped that increased awareness of the problem and highlighting the economic benefits of a healthier population (lower health care costs, for one) will encourage governments to take proactive measures.

[h/t Phys.org]

Original image
MARTIN BERNETTI/AFP/Getty Images
arrow
This Just In
Pablo Neruda's Death Wasn't Caused by Cancer, Experts Conclude
Original image
MARTIN BERNETTI/AFP/Getty Images

Pablo Neruda—whose real name was Ricardo Eliecer Neftalí Reyes Basoalto—died on September 23, 1973, less than two years after he was awarded the 1971 Nobel Prize in Literature. The official cause of death was recorded as cancer cachexia, or wasting syndrome, from prostate cancer. But while Neruda did have cancer, new tests on his remains indicate that the left-leaning Chilean politician and poet didn’t actually succumb to the disease, according to BBC News.

It’s still unclear what, exactly, caused Neruda’s demise. But in a recent press conference, a team of 16 international experts announced that they were "100 percent convinced" that the author's death certificate "does not reflect the reality of the death,” as quoted by the BBC.

Neruda died in 1973 at the age of 69, less than two weeks after a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet ousted the Marxist government of President Salvador Allende. Neruda, a Communist, was a former diplomat and senator, and a friend of the deposed politician.

In 2011, Manuel Araya, Neruda’s chauffeur, claimed that the poet had told him that Pinochet’s men had injected poison into his stomach as he was hospitalized during his final days, Nature reports. The Communist Party of Chile filed a criminal lawsuit, and Neruda’s remains were exhumed in 2013 and later reburied in 2016, according to the BBC.

Many of Neruda’s relatives and friends were reportedly skeptical of Araya’s account, as was the Pablo Neruda Foundation, according to The New York Times. But after samples of Neruda’s remains were analyzed by forensic genetics laboratories in four nations, Chile’s government acknowledged that it was “highly probable” that his official cause of death was incorrect.

And now, the team of scientists has unanimously ruled out cachexia as having caused Neruda’s death. “There was no indication of cachexia,” said Dr. Niels Morling, a forensic medical expert from the University of Copenhagen, as quoted by The Guardian. Neruda “was an obese man at the time of death. All other circumstances in his last phase of life pointed to some kind of infection.”

The investigating team says that their analysis yielded what might be lab-cultivated bacteria, although it could have also originated from the burial site or been produced during the body's decomposition process. Test results will be available within a year, they say.

[h/t BBC News]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER