Decoding the processing of lying using functional connectivity MRI

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious functional MRI (fMRI) studies have demonstrated group differences in brain activity between deceptive and honest responses. The functional connectivity network related to lie-telling remains largely uncharacterized.MethodsIn this study, we designed a lie-telling experiment that emphasized strategy devising. Thirty-two subjects underwent fMRI while responding to questions in a truthful, inverse, or deceitful manner. For each subject, whole-brain functional connectivity networks were constructed from correlations among brain regions for the lie-telling and truth-telling conditions. Then, a multivariate pattern analysis approach was used to distinguish lie-telling from truth-telling based on the functional connectivity networks.ResultsThe classification results demonstrated that lie-telling could be differentiated from truth-telling with an accuracy of 82.81% (85.94% for lie-telling, 79.69% for truth-telling). The connectivities related to the fronto-parietal networks, cerebellum and cingulo-opercular networks are most discriminating, implying crucial roles for these three networks in the processing of deception.ConclusionsThe current study may shed new light on the neural pattern of deception from a functional integration viewpoint.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12993-014-0046-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The guilty brain: the utility of neuroimaging and neurostimulation studies in forensic field

“…Additional posterior areas, such as the temporal-parietal cortex and cerebellum, were active in several studies (Langleben et al, 2002;Phan et al, 2005;Mohamed et al, 2006;Farrow et al, 2015;Kireev et al, 2015). These activations were confirmed in an analysis of connectivity that demonstrated an involvement of the fronto-parietal networks, cerebellum, and cingulo-opercular networks (Jiang et al, 2015). Collectively, these neuroimaging studies have indicated differences in brain activation between deceptive and honest responses; however, despite these similarities, the specific methodology utilized to generate a deceptive response varied across experiments and involved differences in the context, motivation, spontaneity of behavior, and response modalities.…”

“…Neuroimaging studies have consistently demonstrated the crucial roles of the DLPFC, VLPFC, VMPFC, and ACC in deception; however, they also demonstrated the involvement of multiple brain areas, including the cerebellum and the temporal and parietal cortices (Langleben et al, 2005;Phan et al, 2005;Mohamed et al, 2006;Farrow et al, 2015;Kireev et al, 2015). It is not clear whether these regions are necessary to lie; however, the activation of the anterior-posterior network is confirmed by the analysis of connectivity that indicated a pattern of activation in the fronto-parietal networks, cerebellum, and cingulo-opercular networks (Jiang, et al, 2015). Further confirmations from structural neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that pathological liars have an increased volume of white matter in the PFC (Yang et al, 2005(Yang et al, , 2007.…”

“…To examine the brain network of deception, researchers used a Picture Choice task that comprised three conditions: a 'true' condition (the participants were required to provide an honest response), an 'inverse' condition (the participants were required to provide an opposite response), and a 'lie' condition (the participants were required to devise a strategy to deceive other individuals, with the goal of skillfully lying and avoiding detection). In this study, whole-brain functional connectivity networks from correlations among brain regions were used for the lie-telling and truth-telling conditions for each subject (Jiang et al, 2015). The results indicated that lie-telling could be differentiated from truth-telling with an accuracy of 82.81% (85.94% for lietelling and 79.69% for truth-telling).…”

“…Only one study investigated the effect of tDCS in a non-frontal area (Sowden et al, 2015). Interestingly, the improvement in the lie detection accuracy following TPJ stimulation may represent a confirmation of the frontal parietal network described in a connectivity study by Jiang et al (2015).…”

Measurement in Saliva From Neurotypical Adults of Biomarkers Pertinent to Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…Confirming carnitine's involvement with autism is the double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that used carnitine along with other treatments of mitochondrial disease, resulting in improved core and associated autistic symptoms [6]. Reduced levels of serum carnitine in autistic children have been shown to be related to gastrointestinal manifestations [7]. The autistic group included 78 males and 22 females aged between 3 and 10 years.…”