Functional MRI Detection of Deception After Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime*

Abstract

Using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) to detect deception is feasible in simple laboratory paradigms. A mock sabotage scenario was used to test whether this technology would also be effective in a scenario closer to a real-world situation. Healthy, nonmedicated adults were recruited from the community, screened, and randomized to either a Mockcrime group or a No-crime group. The Mock-crime group damaged and stole compact discs (CDs), which contained incriminating video footage, while the No-crime group did not perform a task. The Mock-crime group also picked up an envelope from a researcher, while the No-crime group did not perform this task. Both groups were instructed to report that they picked up an envelope, but did not sabotage any video evidence. Participants later went to the imaging center and were scanned while being asked questions regarding the mock crime. Participants also performed a simple laboratory based fMRI deception testing (Ring-Watch testing). The Ring-Watch testing consisted of "stealing" either a watch or a ring. The participants were instructed to report that they stole neither object. We correctly identified deception during the Ring-Watch testing in 25 of 36 participants (Validated Group). In this Validated Group for whom a determination was made, computer-based scoring correctly identified nine of nine Mock-crime participants (100% sensitivity) and five of 15 No-crime participants (33% specificity). BOLD fMRI presently can be used to detect deception concerning past events with high sensitivity, but low specificity. Intense interest exists in the scientific community and lay press concerning the possibility of using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activation during deception. A number of studies using fMRI to investigate the neural correlates of deception have been published (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). The design and analysis methods across these studies vary considerably, making it difficult to integrate the results. At the group analysis level, however, these studies have consistently found significant brain activation in deception versus telling the truth. There has been variability in the specific brain regions activated during deception in these studies. One explanation for this array of findings is the diversity in tasks and questioning paradigms. To date, successful individual analysis has only been achieved in two studies (2,5). The University of Pennsylvania group (Langleben et al.) also reported on using a different analytic approach to the same imaging data to improve their accuracy (12). NIH Public AccessAlthough these studies reported reasonably high individual accuracy rates, there are several concerns which must be addressed prior to moving this technology to real-world application.One concern is that relatively simple deception paradigms (theft of a watch or ring, deception about which playing card one is holding) were used with perceived financial c...

When Pinocchio's nose does not grow: belief regarding lie-detectability modulates production of deception

“…A 2 (belief: “lie-detector” on, “lie-detector” off) × 2 (question type: theft-related truth-eliciting, theft-related falsehood-eliciting) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no main effects [belief: F (1, 16) = 0.169, p = 0.69; question type: F (1, 16) = 0.00, p = 0.97], and no interaction between belief and question type [ F (1, 16) = 2.381, p = 0.142; see Figure 2]. The similarity between the RTs evoked by questions in the different conditions calls into question previous reports (e.g., Nuñez et al, 2005; Abe et al, 2007; Kozel et al, 2009), which suggested that RTs could be used to distinguish deceptive and truthful behavior (but see the Discussion, where we note the limitations of using RTs in the present context).…”

“…To examine whether the belief that a “lie-detector” was active affected participants' production of deceptive responses, we examined reaction time (RT) data (Nuñez et al, 2005; Abe et al, 2007; Kozel et al, 2009). RTs were calculated as the duration from the end of a question to the participant's button response.…”

“…This, in turn, means that deceivers must hold a belief about whether their deception is likely to be detected because a high likelihood of detection may lead to anxiety, altering the deceiver's emotional state and arousal level. Although several recent studies have attempted to elucidate the neural underpinnings of producing (e.g., Abe et al, 2007; Baumgartner et al, 2009; Kozel et al, 2009; Sip et al, 2010) and detecting (Grèzes et al, 2004, 2006) deceptive behavior, the role of beliefs about the detectability of deception remains poorly understood.…”

“…Recently, a great deal of interest has centered on neuroimaging to test whether this technology could prove to be a useful and reliable tool for lie-detection [for review see Greely and Illes (2007); Sip et al (2008a,b)]. Several physiological (e.g., Bell et al, 2008; Gamer et al, 2010, 2012) and functional MRI (fMRI) studies (see e.g., Kozel et al, 2005, 2009; Mohamed et al, 2006) of mock-crimes have investigated the neural correlates of information inhibition and suppression that are associated with deceptive behavior. This previous research, however, has focused almost entirely on comparing deceptive vs. truthful behavior, neglecting the potential effects of participants' belief in the efficacy of lie-detection, and how such belief may modulate the neural activity underlying deception.…”

The Neural Mechanism of Encountering Misjudgment by the Justice System

“…These studies found that the prefrontal-parietal and anterior cingulate cortices, as the executive brain regions, are pivotally involved in deception [10]–[17]. However, because of the nonspecific relationship between deception and these executive regions, sufficient accuracy has not been obtained with the use of these executive regions to discriminate the guilty from the innocent [18]. Many publications in this area have pointed out this disadvantage [19]–[21], and some researchers believe that it is difficult to find a simple biological marker that can indicate deception, as this is a highly complex and multifaceted cognitive process.…”