Towards clinical trials of lie detection with fMRI

Hakun, Jonathan G.; Ruparel, Kosha; Seelig, David; Busch, E.; Loughead, James; Gur, Ruben C.; Langleben, Daniel D.

doi:10.1080/17470910802188370

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Activity in the middle frontal (BA 45) and the inferior parietal (BA 29 & 39) regions was also observed. Activity in these regions has been widely reported in imaging studies on deception by ourselves and others [4], [5], [62]. Prior research has shown that the precuneus is involved in the recollection of past events and, in particular, the retrieval of rich episodic contextual associations [63].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study

Lee

Raine

et al. 2010

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural correlates of lying about affective information were studied using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) methodology. Specifically, 13 healthy right-handed Chinese men were instructed to lie about the valence, positive or negative, of pictures selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) while their brain activity was scanned by a 3T Philip Achieva scanner. The key finding is that the neural activity associated with deception is valence-related. Comparing to telling the truth, deception about the valence of the affectively positive pictures was associated with activity in the inferior frontal, cingulate, inferior parietal, precuneus, and middle temporal regions. Lying about the valence of the affectively negative pictures, on the other hand, was associated with activity in the orbital and medial frontal regions. While a clear valence-related effect on deception was observed, common neural regions were also recruited for the process of deception about the valence of the affective pictures. These regions included the lateral prefrontal and inferior parietal regions. Activity in these regions has been widely reported in fMRI studies on deception using affectively-neutral stimuli. The findings of this study reveal the effect of valence on the neural activity associated with deception. Furthermore, the data also help to illustrate the complexity of the neural mechanisms underlying deception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study

Lee

Raine

et al. 2010

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would permit meaningful calculations of the error rates, including within-subject accuracy and predictive values. Despite the ethical challenges such trials may pose, forensic functional imaging studies are not inconceivable in both normal and pathological populations (Fullam, McKie, & Dolan, 2009; Hakun et al, 2009; Kozel & Trivedi, 2008; Yang et al, 2007). Another way of estimating new technology’s efficacy is a “head-to-head” comparison between fMRI and the polygraph.…”

Section: The Policy Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide.

Langleben¹,

Moriarty²

2013

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Progress in the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brain to evaluate deception and differentiate lying from truth-telling has created anticipation of a breakthrough in the search for technology-based methods of lie detection. In the last few years, litigants have attempted to introduce fMRI lie detection evidence in courts. This article weighs in on the interdisciplinary debate about the admissibility of such evidence, identifying the missing pieces of the scientific puzzle that need to be completed if fMRI-based lie detection is to meet the standards of either legal reliability or general acceptance. We believe that the Daubert’s “known error rate” is the key concept linking the legal and scientific standards. We posit that properly-controlled clinical trials are the most convincing means to determine the error rates of fMRI-based lie detection and confirm or disprove the relevance of the promising laboratory research on this topic. This article explains the current state of the science and provides an analysis of the case law in which litigants have sought to introduce fMRI lie detection. Analyzing the myriad issues related to fMRI lie detection, the article identifies the key limitations of the current neuroimaging of deception science as expert evidence and explores the problems that arise from using scientific evidence before it is proven scientifically valid and reliable. We suggest that courts continue excluding fMRI lie detection evidence until this potentially useful form of forensic science meets the scientific standards currently required for adoption of a medical test or device. Given a multitude of stakeholders and, the charged and controversial nature and the potential societal impact of this technology, goodwill and collaboration of several government agencies may be required to sponsor impartial and comprehensive clinical trials that will guide the development of forensic fMRI technology.

show abstract

“…Debate surrounding the accuracy and utility of these techniques has been fierce, but several studies have provided promising evidence for the identification of deceptive patterns of brain activity using fMRI (e.g. Hakun et al, 2009; Monteleone et al, 2009), although countermeasures can be developed which may render the technique useless in practice (Ganis et al, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deceptively simple … The “deception-general” ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Focused Review expands upon our original paper (You can't kid a kidder": Interaction between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6:87). In that paper we introduced a new socially interactive, laboratory-based task, the Deceptive Interaction Task (DeceIT), and used it to measure individuals' ability to lie, their ability to detect the lies of others, and potential individual difference measures contributing to these abilities. We showed that the two skills were correlated; better liars made better lie detectors (a “deception general” ability) and this ability seemed to be independent of cognitive (IQ) and emotional (EQ) intelligence. Here, following the Focused Review format, we outline the method and results of the original paper and comment more on the value of lab-based experimental studies of deception, which have attracted criticism in recent years. While acknowledging that experimental paradigms may fail to recreate the full complexity and potential seriousness of real-world deceptive behavior, we suggest that lab-based deception paradigms can offer valuable insight into ecologically-valid deceptive behavior. The use of the DeceIT procedure enabled deception to be studied in an interactive setting, with motivated participants, and importantly allowed the study of both the liar and the lie detector within the same deceptive interaction. It is our thesis that by addressing deception more holistically—by bringing the liar into the “spotlight” which is typically trained exclusively on the lie detector—we may further enhance our understanding of deception.

show abstract

Towards clinical trials of lie detection with fMRI

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study

Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study

Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide.

Deceptively simple … The “deception-general” ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About