Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study

Langleben, Daniel D.; Schroeder, Lee F.; Maldjian, Joseph A.; Gur, Ruben C.; McDonald, Skye; Ragland, J. Daniel; O’Brien, C.P.; Childress, Anna Rose

doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.1003

Cited by 392 publications

(316 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

288

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several fMRI studies reported increased prefrontal and parietal activity during lie, with a subset reporting anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activation or prolonged response time (RT) with lie [Ganis et al, [2003]; Kozel et al, [2004]; Langleben et al, [2002]; Lee et al, [2002]; Nunez et al, [2005]; Spence et al, [2001]]. Based on these findings, deception has been conceptualized as inhibition of truth and generation of lie mediated by the prefrontal cortex, with truth being a routine response mediated by the posterior structures [Langleben et al, [2002]; Spence et al, [2004]].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on these findings, deception has been conceptualized as inhibition of truth and generation of lie mediated by the prefrontal cortex, with truth being a routine response mediated by the posterior structures [Langleben et al, [2002]; Spence et al, [2004]]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, inference in the General Linear Model (GLM) analysis of blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI is based on a contrast of conditions, making the choice of a control condition critical. Thus, the difference in the attentional value (salience) of the cue (condition) intended to elicit lie and the control truth may have confounded previous studies [Cabeza et al, [2003]; Gur et al, [2004]; Langleben et al, [2002]]. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity with which an fMRI experiment can discriminate lie from truth in the individual subject or single event level is unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Langleben

Loughead

Bilker

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

272

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R. (2005). Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics_pubs/6Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related f MRI AbstractDeception is a clinically important behavior with poorly understood neurobiological correlates. Published functional MRI (fMRI) data on the brain activity during deception indicates that, on a multisubject group level, lie is distinguished from truth by increased prefrontal and parietal activity. These findings are theoretically important; however, their applied value will be determined by the accuracy of the discrimination between single deceptive and truthful responses in individual subjects. This study presents the first quantitative estimate of the accuracy of fMRI in conjunction with a formal forced-choice paradigm in detecting deception in individual subjects. We used a paradigm balancing the salience of the target cues to elicit deceptive and truthful responses and determined the accuracy of this model in the classification of single lie and truth events. The relative salience of the task cues affected the net activation associated with lie in the superior medial and inferolateral prefrontal cortices. Lie was discriminated from truth on a single-event level with an accuracy of 78%, while the predictive ability expressed as the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was 85%. Our findings confirm that fMRI, in conjunction with a carefully controlled query procedure, could be used to detect deception in individual subjects. Salience of the task cues is a potential confounding factor in the fMRI pattern attributed to deception in forced choice deception paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Langleben

Loughead

Bilker

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

272

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By stimulating cortical areas activated by deception tasks in imaging studies, we sought to disrupt the neural circuits necessary for the formation of deceptive responses, and thus interfere with deceptive behavior. We adapted a paradigm from fMRI studies of deception using a playing card GKT (Langleben et al, 2002. Subjects were given a hand of six playing cards.…”

Section: Using Non-invasive Brain Stimulation To Directly Affect Decementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have used functional MRI (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) to identify the neural substrate supporting deceptive behavior. These have used a number of deceptive tasks and scenarios, including guilty knowledge tasks (GKT: Langleben et al, 2002Langleben et al, , 2005Phan et al, 2005), mock crime scenarios (Kozel, Padgett, & George, 2004;Kozel et al, 2005;Mohamed et al, 2006), feigned memory impairment (Lee et al, 2002(Lee et al, , 2005, and autobiographical or experienced events (Abe et al, 2006;Abe, Suzuki, Mori, Itoh, & Fujii, 2007;Ganis, Kosslyn, Stose, Thompson, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2003;Nuň ez, Casey, Egner, Harre, & Hirsch, 2005;Spence et al, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences

Luber

Fisher

Appelbaum

et al. 2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tools for noninvasive stimulation of the brain, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have provided new insights in the study of brain-behavior relationships due to their ability to directly alter cortical activity. In particular, TMS and tDCS have proven to be useful tools for establishing causal relationships between behavioral and brain imaging measures. As such, there has been interest in whether these tools may represent novel technologies for deception detection by altering a person's ability to engage brain networks involved in conscious deceit. Investigation of deceptive behavior using noninvasive brain stimulation is at an early stage. Here we review the existing literature on the application of noninvasive brain stimulation in the study of deception. Whether such approaches could be usefully applied to the detection of deception by altering a person's ability to engage brain networks involved in conscious deceit remains to be validated. Ethical and legal consequences of the development of such a technology are discussed.

show abstract

Philosophy of Neuroscience

Bickle

Hardcastle

2012

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its inception more than a quarter‐century ago, the philosophy of neuroscience has grown into a recognised field in the philosophy of the special sciences. It focusses on foundational issues in the discipline, but also anticipates developments in the neurosciences that bear on epistemological, ethical and cultural concerns. In this paper, life scientists are introduced to three current issues in the philosophy of neuroscience: a new version of the old reductionism‐versus‐integrationism debate, spurred recently by ‘new mechanist’ philosophers of neuroscience; a challenge to ‘dynamicist’ explanations in neuroscience, as either covertly mechanistic or nonexplanatory; and a brief introduction to the burgeoning field of neuroethics and neurolaw, which is finding new discoveries in neuroscience that bear on both familiar ethical debates and generate novel ethical and legal concerns. Key Concepts: Philosophy of neuroscience is now a recognised field in the philosophy of the special sciences (biology, psychology and economics). The reductionism‐versus‐integrationism debate has reemerged in an interesting new form due to the recent work by ‘new mechanist’ philosophers of neuroscience. The debate among mechanist‐integrationists, mechanistic reductionist and ruthless reductionists turns on the viability and extent of nested hierarchies of mechanisms in neuroscience. Some ‘new mechanists’ have challenged dynamicist explanations in neuroscience, suggesting that such explanations are not distinct from causal‐mechanistic explanations, and even questioning whether such ‘explanations’ are genuine at all. Neuroethics includes both the study of ethical issues raised or influenced by neuroscientific discoveries, and the neuroscience of ethical judgment and decision‐making. Brain interventionist technologies and neuropharmacology raise difficult questions about the ethical dimensions of potential cognitive enhancement. Existing and foreseeable brain interventions encroach upon deep philosophical questions about personal identity and basic fairness. The increasing use of neuronal evidence in law courts raise troubling issues about brain‐realism and the potential impact such evidence may have on juries and judges.

show abstract

Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study

Cited by 392 publications

References 35 publications

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Non‐invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences

Philosophy of Neuroscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About