A Modified, Event-Related Potential-Based Guilty Knowledge Test

Rosenfeld, J. Peter; Cantwell, Bradley; Nasman, Victoria Tepe; Wojdac, Valerie; Иванов, С С; Mazzeri, Lisa

doi:10.3109/00207458808985770

“…Its specificity is limited because it relies on the correlates of peripheral nervous system activity, while deception is a cognition event with top-down control by the central nervous system (CNS). Experiments using CNS measures obtained by electroencephalography (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provide hope for more accurate detection of deception by comparing the time course and topography of regional brain activity during exposure to cues designed to elicit truth and lie [Rosenfeld et al, [1988]; Spence et al, [2004]]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Langleben

¹

,

Loughead

²

,

Bilker

³

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R. (2005). Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics_pubs/6Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related f MRI AbstractDeception is a clinically important behavior with poorly understood neurobiological correlates. Published functional MRI (fMRI) data on the brain activity during deception indicates that, on a multisubject group level, lie is distinguished from truth by increased prefrontal and parietal activity. These findings are theoretically important; however, their applied value will be determined by the accuracy of the discrimination between single deceptive and truthful responses in individual subjects. This study presents the first quantitative estimate of the accuracy of fMRI in conjunction with a formal forced-choice paradigm in detecting deception in individual subjects. We used a paradigm balancing the salience of the target cues to elicit deceptive and truthful responses and determined the accuracy of this model in the classification of single lie and truth events. The relative salience of the task cues affected the net activation associated with lie in the superior medial and inferolateral prefrontal cortices. Lie was discriminated from truth on a single-event level with an accuracy of 78%, while the predictive ability expressed as the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was 85%. Our findings confirm that fMRI, in conjunction with a carefully controlled query procedure, could be used to detect deception in individual subjects. Salience of the task cues is a potential confounding factor in the fMRI pattern attributed to deception in forced choice deception paradigms.

show abstract

“…"Brain fingerprinting" is thus not really a deception-or liedetection technology. It is also not new; the use of the GKT coupled with ERP was reported as long ago as 1988 (Rosenfeld et al 1988). Farwell's "brain fingerprinting," in fact, is a proprietary version of the technology that has been developed commercially by Farwell and is being actively promoted by his firm Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. (http://www.brainwavescience.com) for forensic, medical, advertising, and security applications.…”

Section: New Methods Old Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils

Wolpe

¹

,

Foster

²

,

Langleben

³

2005

The American Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of deception and confirmation of truth telling with conventional polygraphy raised a host of technical and ethical issues. Recently, newer methods of recording electromagnetic signals from the brain show promise in permitting the detection of deception or truth telling. Some are even being promoted as more accurate than conventional polygraphy. While the new technologies raise issues of personal privacy, acceptable forensic application, and other social issues, the focus of this paper is the technical limitations of the developing technology. Those limitations include the measurement validity of the new technologies, which remains largely unknown. Another set of questions pertains to the psychological paradigms used to model or constrain the target behavior. Finally, there is little standardization in the field, and the vulnerability of the techniques to countermeasures is unknown. Premature application of these technologies outside of research settings should be resisted, and the social conversation about the appropriate parameters of its civil, forensic, and security use should begin.

show abstract

“…From a neuropsychological perspective, both the CQT and GKT are "forced-choice" protocols that seek to detect differences in psychological salience between question by examining the physiologic responses of the subject to target and baseline conditions. Though investigators generally agree that the GKT is methodologically more robust than the CQT (Rosenfeld et al 1988;Stern 2002), it has been less popular with forensic practitioners in the field because the test requires reliable and specific crime-related information known only to the investigators and the perpetrator, which is often difficult to obtain. In recent years, investigators have used the GKT (or variants) to explore the usefulness of a variety of neuroscience techniques for detecting deception.…”

Section: New Methods Old Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils

Wolpe

¹

,

Foster

²

,

Langleben

³

2010

The American Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of deception and confirmation of truth telling with conventional polygraphy raised a host of technical and ethical issues. Recently, newer methods of recording electromagnetic signals from the brain show promise in permitting the detection of deception or truth telling. Some are even being promoted as more accurate than conventional polygraphy. While the new technologies raise issues of personal privacy, acceptable forensic application, and other social issues, the focus of this paper is the technical limitations of the developing technology. Those limitations include the measurement validity of the new technologies, which remains largely unknown. Another set of questions pertains to the psychological paradigms used to model or constrain the target behavior. Finally, there is little standardization in the field, and the vulnerability of the techniques to countermeasures is unknown. Premature application of these technologies outside of research settings should be resisted, and the social conversation about the appropriate parameters of its civil, forensic, and security use should begin.

show abstract

A Modified, Event-Related Potential-Based Guilty Knowledge Test

Cited by 172 publications

References 4 publications

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils

Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About