Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neurobiology of Deception

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Non-Disclosing Patient

  • 309 Accesses

Abstract

Deception is a complex psychosocial engagement where the executor deliberately tries to implant a thought in the mind of another person in a manner that one accepts what executor knows as not true (Abe et al, J Cogn Neurosci 19(2):287–295, 2007; Abe, Curr Opin Neurol 22(6):594–600, 2009). Biologically, deception is a cognitive process that involves executive system of the brain for functions including but not limited to decision-making, risk taking, cognitive control, and reward processing (Ganis, Keenan, Soc Neurosci 4(6):465–472, 2009). As for the execution of any other intricate action, brain’s executive system is merely involved to infer deception but not unique to it. Hence, prior attempting to understand and frame deception as a physiological process, it is important to consider that any single biological response may not predict it, perhaps studying combination of various complex neuro-circuits shaping deception could help better understand and measure it indirectly.

While tracing neural footprints of deception, it is also important to understand various forms of deception. Deception may be hidden in various social situations. It may consist of deceiving someone entirely not aware of deceiver’s intention to deceive or may contain manipulation of both factual and fabricated information to deceive someone expecting a deceptive behavior.

For ages, man has been trying to find ways to identify valid and accurate clues linked to the deceptive behavior. The change in the human behavior, including nonverbal cues such as physical expressions and autonomic activity arousal associated with lying, has been extensively studied and utilized as deception measurement tools. Motor responses associated with deceptive behavior not only provide an additional gateway for observational assessment of deception but also highlight the phenomenon of brain’s intrinsic coordination between areas of cognitive and motor response regulation. The implications of understanding neurobiology of deception are not only relative to psychiatric practice but can also serve forensic practice and criminal law.

A major challenge associated with deception measurement tools is the sole reliance on measurement of physiological responses, which could be independent of deceptive behavior, such as secondary to stress or general anxiety associated with the situation of being assessed. In the past few decades, there has been significant advancement in the technologies available to study morphology and functioning of the brain. Imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission topographic (PET) scans have provided a new hope to study and detect deception. Although accuracy and validity of these imaging modalities to detect deception remain in question, they have provided valuable information and ways forward to understand deception as a neurobiological process.

Deceptive behavior either by a skilled or an immature executor requires coordination and organization between sets of cognitive functions. The principal areas implicated in the cognitive processing and executive functioning of the brain are rather sensitive but not specific to deception. Hence, the challenge still remains; it is not only the lying that involves cognitive function but the truth telling as well.

This chapter is focused on discussing deception from a neurological perspective and to take the reader through a journey of neural processes studied in relation to deception. It will cover the subjects comprehensively to gain an overview of potential shaping of deceptive behavior within the brain and review degree of success we have today in understanding and identifying the neural processes involved in deception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Allen JB, Mertens R. Limitations to the detection of deception: true and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event related potential procedure. Soc Neurosci. 2009;4(6):473–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA. Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(4):177–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abe N, Greene JD. Response to anticipated reward in the nucleus accumbens predicts behavior in an independent test of honesty. J Neurosci. 2014;34:10564–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Abe N, et al. Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19(2):287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ambrosini E, Arbula S, Rossato C, Pacella V, Vallesi A. Neuro-cognitive architecture of executive functions: a latent variable analysis. Cortex. 2019;119:441–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Biswal B, Zerrin Yetkin F, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1995;34:537–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhutta MR, Hong MJ, Kim Y-H, Hong K-S. Single-trial lie detection using a combined fNIRS-polygraph system. Front Psychol. 2015;6:709.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bilder RM, Volavka J, Lachman HM, et al. The catechol-O-methyltransferase polymorphism: relations to the tonic-phasic dopamine hypothesis and neuropsychiatric phenotypes. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29:1943–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook G, Mitschow C. Beyond the polygraph: deception detection and the autonomic nervous system. Fed Pract. 2019;36(7):316.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Christ SE, Van Essen DC, Watson JM, Brubaker LE, McDermott KB. The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cereb Cortex. 2009;19:1557–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Coles MGH. In: Rugg MD, Coles MGH, editors. Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 86–131.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, Cohen AL, Wenger KK, Dosenbach RA, et al. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:11073–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pollina DA, et al. Facial skin surface temperature changes during a ‘concealed information’ test. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006;34(7):1182–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Denney RM, Koch H, Craig IW. Association between monoamine oxidase a activity in human male skin fibroblasts and genotype of the MAOA promoter-associated variable number tandem repeat. Hum Genet. 1999;105:542–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deckert J, Catalano M, Syagailo YV, et al. Excess of high activity monoamine oxidase A gene promoter alleles in female patients with panic disorder. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:621–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ford EB. Lie detection: historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006;29(3):159–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Farah MJ, Hutchinson JB, Phelps EA, Wagner AD. Functional MRI based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(2):123–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gao JF, Yang Y, Huang WT, Lin P, Ge S, Zheng HM, Gu LY, Zhou H, Li CH, Rao NN. Exploring time-and frequency – dependant functional connectivity and brain networks during deception with single-trial event related potentials. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37065.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Garrett N, Lazzaro SC, Ariely D, Sharot T. The brain adapts to dishonesty. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19(12):1727–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Monteleone GT, Phan KL, Nusbaum HC, Fitzgerald D, Irick J-S. Detection of deception using fMRI: better than chance, but well below perfection. Soc Neurosci. 2009;4(6):528–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ganis G, Keenan J. The cognitive neuroscience of deception. Soc Neurosci. 2009;4(6):465–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Greene JD, Paxton JM. Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(30):12506–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang H, Lu X, Cui Z, Feng C, Lin Q, Cui X, Su S, Liu C. Resting-state functional connectivity and deception: exploring individualized deceptive propensity by machine learning. Neuroscience. 2018;395:101–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes C, Russell J. Autistic children’s difficulty with mental disengagement from an object: its implications for theories of autism. Dev Psychol. 1993;29(3):498–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Iacono WG. The detection of deception. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GC, editors. Handbook of psychophysiology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 772–93.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson R Jr, Barnhardt J, Zhu J. The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(7):878–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang W, et al. Decoding the processing of lying using functional connectivity MRI. Behav Brain Funct. 2015;11:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kireev M, Korotkov A, Medvedeva N, Masharipov R, Medvedev S. Deceptive but not honest manipulative actions are associated with increased interaction between middle and inferior frontal gyri. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:482.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Seong K-H, Maekawa T, Ishii S. Inheritance and memory of stress-induced epigenome change: roles played by the ATF-2 family of transcription factors. Genes Cells. 2012;17(4):249–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kozel FA, Johnson KA, Mu Q, Grenesko EL, Laken SJ, George MS. Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58(8):605–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee TM, Liu HL, Tan LH, Chan CCH, Mahankali S, Feng CM, Hou J, Fox PT, Gao JH. Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;15:157–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lisofsky N, Kazzer P, Heekeren HR, Prehn K. Investigating socio-cognitive processes in deception: a quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia. 2014;61:113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Langleben DD, Schroeder L, Maldjian JA, Gur RC, McDonald S, Ragland JD, O’Brien CP, Childress AR. Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage. 2002;15:727–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Langleben DD, Hakun JG, Seelig D. Polygraphy and functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection: a controlled blind comparison using the concealed information test. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(10):1372–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lømo T. Discovering long-term potentiation (LTP)-recollections and reflections on what came after. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2018;222(2):e12921. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12921.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Marcuse LV, Fields MC, Yoo J. Rowans Primer of EEG. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41:49–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Molenberghs P, Johnson H, Henry JD, Mattingley JB. Understanding the minds of others: a neuroimaging metaanalysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;65:276–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS, Cohen JD. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(3):624–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson R. Scientific basis for polygraph testing. Polygraph. 2015;44(1):28–61.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nunez JM, Casey BJ, Egner T, Hare T, Hirsch J. Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control. NeuroImage. 2005;25:267–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nash K, Gianotti LRR, Knoch D. A neural trait approach to exploring individual differences in social preferences. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;8:458.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Park H-J, Friston K. Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cognition. Science. 2013;(80):342.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peteroff OA. Gaba and glutamate in the human brain. Neuroscientist. 2002;8(6):562–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118(10):2128–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Salmelin R, Kujala J. Neural representation of language: activation versus long-range connectivity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10(11):519–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rosenfeld JP, Labkovsky E. New P300-based protocol to detect concealed information: resistance to mental countermeasures against only half the irrelevant stimuli and a possible ERP indicator of countermeasures. Psychophysiology. 2010;47(6):1002–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Spence SA, Kaylor-Hughes C, Farrow TFD, Wilkinson ID. Speaking of secrets and lies: the contribution of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to vocal deception. NeuroImage. 2008;40:1411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Segrave K. Lie detectors: a social history. Jefferson: McFarland & Company; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sporns O. Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:652–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Spence SA, Farrow TFD, Herford AE, Wilkinson ID, Zheng Y, Woodruff PWR. Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport. 2001;12(13):2849–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Smitha KA, Akhil Raja K, Arun KM, Rajesh PG, Thomas B, Kapilamoorthy TR, Kesavadas C. Resting state fMRI: a review on methods in resting state connectivity analysis and resting state networks. Neuroradiol J. 2017;30(4):305–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Spence SA, Hunter MD, Farrow TF, Green RD, Leung DH, Hughes CJ, Ganesan V. A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;359:1755.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Sabol SZ, Hu S, Hamer D. A functional polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene promoter. Hum Genet. 1998;103:273–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Knösche TR, Tittgemeyer M. The role of long-range connectivity for the characterization of the functional–anatomical organization of the cortex. Front Syst Neurosci. 2011;5:58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Timmann D, Daum I. Cerebellar contributions to cognitive functions: a progress report after two decades of research. Cerebellum. 2007;6:159–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. United States v Scheffer, 523 US 303 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Vicianova M. Historical techniques of lie detection. Eur J Psychol. 2015;11(3):522–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Von Bernhardi R, et al. What is neural plasticity? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1015:1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang X, et al. Central cholinergic system mediates working memory deficit induced by anesthesia/surgery in adult mice. Brain Behav. 2018;8(5):e00957.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am thankful for the opportunity, support, and guidance provided by Dr. Alexander Lerman for studying and exploring psychodynamic-rich phenomenon of deception. I am thankful to my teachers and my mentor, Dr. Kyle Lapidus, my wife, and my parents for ongoing support and guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Alexander Lerman

Authors
  1. Alexander Lerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Lerman .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lerman, A. (2020). Neurobiology of Deception. In: The Non-Disclosing Patient. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48614-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48614-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48613-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48614-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation