Neural processes underlying self- and other-related lies: An individual difference approach using fMRI

Abstract

Two hypotheses were tested using a novel individual differences approach, which identifies rate-limiting brain regions, that is, brain regions in which variations in neural activity predict variations in behavioral performance. The first hypothesis is that the rate-limiting regions that support the production of lies about oneself (self-related) are partially distinct from those underlying the production of lies about other individuals (other-related). The second hypothesis is that a cingulate-insular-prefrontal network found to be rate-limiting for interference tasks is involved in both types of lies. The results confirmed both hypotheses and supported the utility of this individual differences approach in the study of deception in particular, as well in the study of complex cognitive phenomena more generally.

The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment

“…The following review is structured around a series of cognitive studies conducted over the past decade using the ERP (Johnson et al, 2003(Johnson et al, , 2004(Johnson et al, , 2008a and fMRI (Ganis et al, 2003(Ganis et al, , 2009 techniques. It is important to remember that, due to their different strengths and weaknesses, ERP experiments emphasize the temporal characteristics of the cognitive processes involved whereas fMRI experiments emphasize the locations of activated brain areas.…”

Deception Detection Using Neuroimaging

“…Second, the dependence of the accuracy results on the details of the paradigms suggests that it may be difficult to devise general and robust methods for deception detection in realistic situations. The effect of important variables such as various types of individual differences (Ganis et al, 2003(Ganis et al, , 2009, social context (Sip, Roepstorff, McGregor, & Frith, 2008) and instructions to lie (Spence et al, 2008) on the reliability of deception detection in single subjects has been completely unexplored. It is likely that multiple paradigms and methods may need to be used for different situations.…”

“…A. Bhatt, Lohrenz, Camerer, & Montague, 2010;S. Bhatt et al, 2009;Browndyke et al, 2008;Davatzikos et al, 2005;Fullam, McKie, & Dolan, 2009;Gamer, Bauermann, Stoeter, & Vossel, 2007;Gamer, Klimecki, Bauermann, Stoeter, & Vossel, 2012;Ganis, Kosslyn, Stose, Thompson, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2003;Ganis, Rosenfeld, Meixner, Kievit, & Schendan, 2011;Ganis et al, 2009;Hakun et al, 2009;Ito et al, 2011Ito et al, , 2012Jin et al, 2009;Kaylor-Hughes et al, 2011;Kireev, Korotkov, & Medvedev, 2012;Kozel, Johnson, Grenesko et al, 2009;Kozel, Johnson, Laken, et al, 2009;Kozel, Laken, et al, 2009;Kozel, Padgett, & George, 2004;Kozel et al, 2004;Kroliczak, Cavina-Pratesi, Goodman, & Culham, 2007;Langleben et al, 2002;Lee, Raine, & Chan, 2010;Lee et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2002;Lee et al, 2005;Liang et al, 2012;Marchewka et al, 2012;McPherson, McMahon, Wilson, & Copland, 2012;Mohamed et al, 2006;Monteleone et al, 2009;Nunez, Casey, Egner, Hare, & Hirsch, 2005;Phan et al, 2005;Sip et al, 2010;Spence, Kaylor-Hughes, Farrow, & Wilkinson, 2008;Spence et al, 2001). The focus of this chapter is on the technic...…”

Erratum: The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders

“…Of the minority of studies reporting statistics that are directly relevant to assessing accuracy at the level of individual subjects or individual events 2,7,8,16,17,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] , only two studies (to our knowledge) report data relevant to detecting deception at the individual event level. Specifically, using the same dataset, Langleben et al 16 and Davatzikos et al 17 focused on whether instructed lie and truth events could be discriminated, using either logistic regression16 or non-linear machine learning analyses 17 .…”

“…A relatively high proportion of criminals meet the criteria for psychopathy, a condition associated with frequent acts of deception, which has been linked to differences in both structural and functional MRI studies. 27 A study of fMRI lie detection in criminal offenders with a diagnosis related to psychopathy, specifically anti-social personality disorder, found that a large proportion of these participants did not show typical prefrontal BOLD response patterns during instructed deception. 28 Cognitive, personality and brain factors associated with a wide range of individual differences may also affect the validity of fMRI lie detection.…”