Deception Detection Using Neuroimaging

Ganis, Giorgio

doi:10.1002/9781118510001.ch5

Cited by 69 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fuelled by the September 11 terror attack in the United States and subsequent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, interest in the detection of deception has gained momentum in the past years. This development coincided with the increased accessibility of modern neuroimaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and a growing number of neuroscientists have begun to explore whether measurements of brain functions can help to detect deception (Gamer, ; Ganis, ; see Figure ). Moreover, private companies such as Government Works, No Lie MRI, and Truthful Brain Corporation are marketing lie detection tests based on brain function.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have no ambition to provide an exhaustive review of the available literature on the detection of deception with the ANS, ERPs, or neuroimaging‐based measures. Such resources are readily available (see, e.g., National Research Council, , and Meijer & Verschuere, , for a discussion of polygraph testing and Gamer, , and Ganis, , for a discussion of neuroimaging‐based lie detection). Nor are we aiming to provide elaborate directions for future research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detection of deception has attracted increased attention among psychological researchers, legal scholars, and ethicists during the last decade. Much of this has been driven by the possibility of using neuroimaging techniques for lie detection. Yet, neuroimaging studies addressing deception detection are clouded by lack of conceptual clarity and a host of methodological problems that are not unique to neuroimaging. We review the various research paradigms and the dependent measures that have been adopted to study deception and its detection. In doing so, we differentiate between basic research designed to shed light on the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying deceptive behavior and applied research aimed at detecting lies. We also stress the distinction between paradigms attempting to detect deception directly and those attempting to establish involvement by detecting crime-related knowledge, and discuss the methodological difficulties and threats to validity associated with each paradigm. Our conclusion is that the main challenge of future research is to find paradigms that can isolate cognitive factors associated with deception, rather than the discovery of a unique (brain) correlate of lying. We argue that the Comparison Question Test currently applied in many countries has weak scientific validity, which cannot be remedied by using neuroimaging measures. Other paradigms are promising, but the absence of data from ecologically valid studies poses a challenge for legal admissibility of their outcomes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ventrolateral prefrontal activation had previously been shown associated with response inhibition [18]. This patternwhich has been found in many studies since (for reviews see [15,16]) -led the authors to conclude that deception constitutes an executive function, including withholding the truth, and response manipulation and monitoring. In other words, the truthful responding is the default modus of the brain, and when being deceptive, this truth needs to be inhibited, and the deceptive response needs to be selected and executed.…”

Section: From Polygraph To Brain Imagingmentioning

confidence: 85%

Deception detection based on neuroimaging: Better than the polygraph?

Meijer

Verschuere

2017

Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polygraph tests have been used to detect deception for almost a century. Yet for almost as long, the validity of these tests has been criticized. Over the last decade, the use of brain imagingmost notably fMRI-for the detection of deception has attracted increased attention. The expectation is that fMRI can overcomeat least some of-the shortcomings of the polygraph. In this review, we discuss whether this expectation is warranted. Based on our review of the empirical evidence, we argue that fMRI deception research has boosted the theory development of deception. But for practical purposes, fMRI research has thus far done surprisingly little to solve or circumvent the problems than have been associated with deception research for ages.

show abstract

“…CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license made available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 18, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.18.448944 doi: bioRxiv preprint imaging (fMRI), and stimulus-evoked brain potentials from electroencephalography (EEG), have become popular tools to record the reaction of the brain to the stimuli in the CIT (Gamer, 2014;Ganis, 2014;Hu et al, 2011;Mameli et al, 2010;Zeki et al, 2004). Although it might be noted that a measurement that is simpler and costs less, for example, electrodermal activity rather than fMRI, could be more easily adopted in forensic applications (Furedy, 2009), the CIT has proven capable of detecting concealed information across a range of measures (Ambach et al, 2010(Ambach et al, , 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the beginning, autonomic-nervous-system responses that indicate levels of arousal, such as heart rate, respiration and electrodermal activity, were measured (Kleiner, 2002; Rosenfeld et al, 2007). Additionally, in recent years, neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and stimulus-evoked brain potentials from electroencephalography (EEG), have become popular tools to record the reaction of the brain to the stimuli in the CIT (Gamer, 2014; Ganis, 2014; Hu et al, 2011; Mameli et al, 2010; Zeki et al, 2004). Although it might be noted that a measurement that is simpler and costs less, for example, electrodermal activity rather than fMRI, could be more easily adopted in forensic applications (Furedy, 2009), the CIT has proven capable of detecting concealed information across a range of measures (Ambach et al, 2010, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concealed identity information detection with pupillometry in rapid serial visual presentation

Chen

Karabay

Mathôt

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concealed information test (CIT) relies on bodily reactions to stimuli that are hidden in mind. However, people can use countermeasures, such as purposely focusing on irrelevant things, to confound the CIT. A new method designed to prevent the use of countermeasures, based on rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), presents each stimulus on the fringe of awareness. Previous studies that used RSVP in combination with electroencephalography (EEG) showed that participants exhibit a clear reaction to their real first name, when they pretend to have a different name, even when they try to prevent such a reaction. Since EEG measures are not easily applicable outside the laboratory, we investigated here whether pupil size, which is easier to measure, is also able to detect concealed identity information. In our study, 31 participants were asked to adopt a fake name, and search for this name in an RSVP task, while their pupil sizes were recorded. Apart from this fake name, their real name and a control name also appeared in the task. We found that the pupil dilated more in response to the task-irrelevant real name, as compared to control names. However, while most participants showed this effect qualitatively, it was not statistically significant for most participants when analysed individually. Taken together, our results show that the current RSVP task with pupillometry can detect concealed identity information at a group level. Further development of the method is needed to create a valid and reliable concealed identity information detector at the individual level.

show abstract

Deception Detection Using Neuroimaging

Cited by 69 publications

References 55 publications

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty

Deception detection based on neuroimaging: Better than the polygraph?

Concealed identity information detection with pupillometry in rapid serial visual presentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About