Despite the popularity of structural neuroimaging techniques in twenty-first-century research, its results have had limited translational impact in real-world settings, where inferences need to be made at the individual level. Structural neuroimaging methods are now introduced frequently to aid in assessing defendants for insanity in criminal forensic evaluations, with the aim of providing “convergence” of evidence on the mens rea of the defendant. This approach may provide pivotal support for judges’ decisions. Although neuroimaging aims to reduce uncertainty and controversies in legal settings and to increase the objectivity of criminal rulings, the application of structural neuroimaging in forensic settings is hampered by cognitive biases in the evaluation of evidence that lead to misinterpretation of the imaging results. It is thus increasingly important to have clear guidelines on the correct ways to apply and interpret neuroimaging evidence. In the current paper, we review the literature concerning structural neuroimaging in court settings with the aim of identifying rules for its correct application and interpretation. These rules, which aim to decrease the risk of biases, focus on the importance of (i) descriptive diagnoses, (ii) anatomo-clinical correlation, (iii) brain plasticity and (iv) avoiding logical fallacies, such as reverse inference. In addition, through the analysis of real forensic cases, we describe errors frequently observed due to incorrect interpretations of imaging. Clear guidelines for both the correct circumstances for introducing neuroimaging and its eventual interpretation are defined

No abstract

Facial expressions are among the most powerful signals for human beings to convey their emotional states. Indeed, emotional facial datasets represent the most effective and controlled method of examining humans’ interpretation of and reaction to various emotions. However, scientific research on emotion mainly relied on static pictures of facial expressions posed (i.e., simulated) by actors, creating a significant bias in emotion literature. This dataset tries to fill this gap, providing a considerable amount (N = 1458) of dynamic genuine (N = 707) and posed (N = 751) clips of the six universal emotions from 56 participants. The dataset is available in two versions: original clips, including participants’ body and background, and modified clips, where only the face of participants is visible. Notably, the original dataset has been validated by 122 human raters, while the modified dataset has been validated by 280 human raters. Hit rates for emotion and genuineness, as well as the mean, standard deviation of genuineness, and intensity perception, are provided for each clip to allow future users to select the most appropriate clips needed to answer their scientific questions.

No abstract

A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision “beyond any reasonable doubt,” suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.