Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging

Lee, Tatia M.C.; Liu, Ho Ling; Tan, Li Hai; Chan, Che Hin Chetwyn; Mahankali, Srikanth; Feng, Ching Mei; Hou, Jin; Fox, Peter T.; Gao, Jia

doi:10.1002/hbm.10020

Cited by 220 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several fMRI studies reported increased prefrontal and parietal activity during lie, with a subset reporting anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activation or prolonged response time (RT) with lie [Ganis et al, [2003]; Kozel et al, [2004]; Langleben et al, [2002]; Lee et al, [2002]; Nunez et al, [2005]; Spence et al, [2001]]. Based on these findings, deception has been conceptualized as inhibition of truth and generation of lie mediated by the prefrontal cortex, with truth being a routine response mediated by the posterior structures [Langleben et al, [2002]; Spence et al, [2004]].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Langleben

Loughead

Bilker

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

269

211

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Langleben

Loughead

Bilker

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

269

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is some confl ict between this PET study and previous fMRI studies in regard to the laterality of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. The PET study showed signifi cant activation in the left hemisphere, whereas Kozel et al (2004a) reported activation in the right hemisphere, Lee et al (2002) in the bilateral hemisphere, Kozel et al (2004b) in the more anterior part of the prefrontal cortex with right dominance, and Ganis et al (2003) reported bilateral activation. It is possible that this confl ict is due to the different experimental designs used in these studies; however, these confl icts clearly indicate the need for more neuroimaging studies of deception.…”

Section: Positron Emission Tomography (Pet)mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…• Lee et al (2002) investigated a malingering paradigm in which subjects pretended to have a memory impairment by making intentional errors, at their own discretion, during a forced-choice memory task using numbers and autobiographical information.…”

Section: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Fmri)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE DEC 20062 Same as Report (SAR)18 About the Intelligence Science Board MissionThe Intelligence Science Board was chartered in August 2002 and advises the Offi ce of the Director of National Intelligence and senior Intelligence Community leaders on emerging scientifi c and technical issues of special importance to the Intelligence Community. The mission of the Board is to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community. The Board also creates linkages between the Intelligence Community and the scientifi c and technical communities. ImpactBoard members initiate studies and assessments in topic areas where they believe that the Board's interdisciplinary expertise and experience could benefi t the Intelligence Community. In addition, the Board responds to tasking from the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology and from the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community. All ISB tasks are mutually agreed to by the ISB and by the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology. The Board's procedures for developing and communicating its fi ndings and advice will remain as fl exible and informal as is possible, consistent with the mission. MembershipThe Board is composed of approximately 25 members whose range of expertise encompasses the physical and biological sciences, information technology and communications, information policy, and the law, among others. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not refl ect the offi cial policy or position of the Department of Defense, the National Foreign Intelligence Community or the U.S. Government EDUCING INFORMATION Interrogation: Science and Art The National Defense Intelligence College supports and encourages research on intelligence issues that distills lessons and improves Intelligence Community capabilities for policy-level and operational consumersEducing Information: Interrogatio...

show abstract

“…The parietal cortex appears to be critical in such mental searches (e.g. in TMS, Luber et al, 2007a; in imaging of deception, Lee et al, 2002). On the other hand, no deception effects caused by TMS were found in the two frontal sites.…”

Section: Using Non-invasive Brain Stimulation To Directly Affect Decementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have used functional MRI (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) to identify the neural substrate supporting deceptive behavior. These have used a number of deceptive tasks and scenarios, including guilty knowledge tasks (GKT: Langleben et al, 2002Langleben et al, , 2005Phan et al, 2005), mock crime scenarios (Kozel, Padgett, & George, 2004;Kozel et al, 2005;Mohamed et al, 2006), feigned memory impairment (Lee et al, 2002(Lee et al, , 2005, and autobiographical or experienced events (Abe et al, 2006;Abe, Suzuki, Mori, Itoh, & Fujii, 2007;Ganis, Kosslyn, Stose, Thompson, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2003;Nuň ez, Casey, Egner, Harre, & Hirsch, 2005;Spence et al, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences

Luber

Fisher

Appelbaum

et al. 2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tools for noninvasive stimulation of the brain, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have provided new insights in the study of brain-behavior relationships due to their ability to directly alter cortical activity. In particular, TMS and tDCS have proven to be useful tools for establishing causal relationships between behavioral and brain imaging measures. As such, there has been interest in whether these tools may represent novel technologies for deception detection by altering a person's ability to engage brain networks involved in conscious deceit. Investigation of deceptive behavior using noninvasive brain stimulation is at an early stage. Here we review the existing literature on the application of noninvasive brain stimulation in the study of deception. Whether such approaches could be usefully applied to the detection of deception by altering a person's ability to engage brain networks involved in conscious deceit remains to be validated. Ethical and legal consequences of the development of such a technology are discussed.

show abstract

Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging

Cited by 220 publications

References 40 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

Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future

Non‐invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About