Advertisement

Lie Detection: fMRI

  • Giuseppe La Tona
  • Maria Chiara Terranova
  • Federica Vernuccio
  • Giuseppe Lo Re
  • Sergio Salerno
  • Stefania Zerbo
  • Antonina Argo
Chapter

Abstract

Objective detection of deception was extensively studied, starting from polygraph to more modern techniques, the functional MR (fMRI), and they are based on neural (sympathetic) activation that is evoked in stressful conditions, such as lying. The role of fMRI in neurophysiology has been extensively developed and studied, and its principles lie in the correlation between the brain demand of energy during determined task and its supply. Although being extensively studied, its role for judiciary purpose presents many shortcomings.

References

  1. 1.
    Spence SA, Hunter MD, Farrow TFD et al (2004) A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 359(1451):1755–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sodian B, Frith U (1992) Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 33(3):591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ekman P, O’Sullivan M (1991) Who can catch a liar? Am Psychol 46:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farah MJ, Hutchinson J, Phelps EA, Wagner AD (2014) Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci 15:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schafer ED (2008) In: Embar-Seddon A, Pass AD (eds) Forensic science. Salem Press, Ipswich, p 40Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ben-Shakhar G, Bar-Hillel M, Lieblich I (1986) Trial by polygraph: scientific and juridical issues in lie detection. Behav Sci Law 4:459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Research Council (2003) The polygraph and lie detection. The National Academies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langleben DD, Moriarty JC (2013) Using brain imaging for lie detection: where science, law and research policy collide. Psychol Public Policy Law 19(2):222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Logothetis NK (2008) What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453(7197):869–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rusconi E, Mitchener-Nissen T (2013) Prospects of functional magnetic resonance imaging as lie detector. Front Hum Neurosci 7:594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shapiro ZE (2016) Truth, deceit, and neuroimaging: can functional magnetic resonance imaging serve as a technology-based method of lie detection? Harvard J Law Technol 29(2 Spring):528–549Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Chesler DA, Goldberg IE, Weisskoff RM, Poncelet BP et al (1992) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. PNAS 89:5675–5679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolpe PR, Foster KR, Langleben DD (2005) Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. Am J Bioeth 5(2):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abe N (2011) How the brain shapes deception: an integrated review of the literature. Neuroscientist 17:560–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gamer M (2011) Detecting of deception and concealed information using neuroimaging techniques. In: Verschuere B, BenShakhar G, Meijer E (eds) Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp 90–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ben-Shakhar G (2001) A critical review of the controlled question test (CQT). In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, London, San Diego, pp 103–127Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ben-Shakhar G, Bar-Hillel M, Kremnitzer M (2002) Trial by polygraph: reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court. Law Hum Behav 26:527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langleben DD et al (2002) Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage 15:727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hakun JG, Seelig D, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Busch E, Gur RC, Langleben DD (2008) fMRI investigation of the cognitive structure of the concealed information test. Neurocase 14(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozel FA, Johnson KA, Mu Q, Grenesko EL, Laken SJ, George MS (2005) Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry 58(8):605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phelps EA (2006) Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu Rev Psychol 57:27–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bush G, Luu P, Posner MI (2000) Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 4:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levens SM, Phelps EA (2010) Insula and orbital frontal cortex activity underlying emotion interference resolution in working memory. J Cogn Neurosci 22:2790–2803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee TMC, Lee TMY, Raine A, Chan CCH (2010) Lying about the valence of affective pictures: an fMRI study. PLoS One 5:e12291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gamer M, Klimecki O, Bauermann T, Stoeter P, Vossel G (2012) fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7(5):506–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ganis G, Rosenfeld JP, Meixner J, Kievit RA, Schendan HE (2011) Lying in the scanner: covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage 55(1):312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uncapher MR, Chow T, Rissman J, Eberhart J, Wagner AD (2012) Strategic influences on memory expression: effects of countermeasures and memory strength on the neural decoding of past experience. Soc Neurosci Abstr 905.13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rissman J, Greely HT, Wagner AD (2010) Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:9849–9854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamann S, Turhan C (2004) Individual differences in emotion processing. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14(2):233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson NE, Kiehl KA (2012) The psychopath magnetized: insights from brain imaging. Trends Cogn Sci 16:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe La Tona
    • 1
  • Maria Chiara Terranova
    • 1
  • Federica Vernuccio
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Lo Re
    • 1
  • Sergio Salerno
    • 1
  • Stefania Zerbo
    • 2
  • Antonina Argo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biopathology and Medical BiotechnologiesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Sciences for the Promotion of Health and Maternal and Child Care “G. D’Alessandro”University of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations