Lying in the scanner: Covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging

Ganis, Giorgio; Rosenfeld, J. Peter; Meixner, John B.; Kievit, Rogier A.; Schendan, Haline E.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.025

Cited by 117 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One recent laboratory fMRI study showed that activity patterns in specific prefrontal regions could distinguish lies from truth telling with great accuracy in individual subjects 42 . However, that same study showed that when experimenters instructed participants to use countermeasures designed to beat the test, there was a dramatic reduction in the ability of fMRI responses to distinguish lies from truth.…”

Section: Distinguishing True and False Memories With Neuroimagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court has led to improved jury instructions that incorporate psychological research documenting that memory does not operate like a video recording. Here we consider how cognitive neuroscience could contribute to addressing memory in the courtroom. We discuss conditions in which neuroimaging can distinguish true and false memories in the laboratory, and note reasons to be skeptical about its use in courtroom cases. We also discuss neuroscience research concerning false and imagined memories, misinformation effects, and reconsolidation phenomena that may enhance understanding of why memory does not operate like a video recording.Memory and law

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing True and False Memories With Neuroimagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, fMRI also has several shortcomings [28,[30][31][32][33]. First, most of the fMRI studies have been small and rarely replicated, thereby lacking validity through scientific scrutiny.…”

Section: Neuroscience Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does “lie to me” lie to you? An evaluation of facial clues to high-stakes deception

Lin

Levine

2016

Computer Vision and Image Understanding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During a forensic interview, high-stakes deception is very prevalent notwithstanding the heavy consequences that may result. Studies have shown that most untrained people cannot perform well in discerning liars and truth-tellers.Thus it has become common to adopt various technical aids to compensate for this poor judgment. Examples are polygraphs, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and linguistic analysis. However, the deception indicators used in these cases are not reliable.In the popular TV program Lie to Me, micro-expressions have been used for detecting deceit during the investigation of some criminal cases. A microexpression is considered to be a rapid and involuntary facial expression which could reveal the concealed emotion. Additionally, some psychological studies have stated that certain facial actions are more difficult to inhibit if the associated facial expressions are genuine. Similarly, these facial expressions are equally difficult to fake. This has cast light on the possibility that deception could be detected by analyzing these facial actions. However, to the best knowledge of the author, there is no computer vision research that has attempted to discriminate high-stakes deception from truth using facial expressions. Therefore, this thesis aims to test the validity of facial clues to deception detection in high-stakes situations using computer vision approaches.We note that only a limited number of the existing databases have been collected specifically for deception detection studies and none of them were obtained from real-world situations. In this thesis we present a video database of actual highstakes situations, which we have created using YouTube.We have adopted 2D appearance-based methods as the methodology to characterize the 3D facial features. Instead of building a 3D head model as is the current trend, we have extracted invariant 2D features that are related to the 3D characteristic.iii In order to discern deception and honesty, we have identified the following deceptive cues from nine separate facial regions through dynamic facial analysis: eye blink, eyebrow motion, wrinkle occurrence and mouth motion. Then these cues were integrated to form a facial behavior pattern vector. A Random Forest was trained using the collected database and applied to classify the facial patterns into deceptive and truthful categories.Despite the many uncontrolled factors (illumination, head pose and facial occlusion) in the videos in our database, we have achieved an accuracy of 76.92% when discriminating liars from truth-tellers using both micro-expressions and

show abstract

“…The validity of using single-subject fMRI data to uncover evidence of behavioral aberration, pain, or deception is more problematic. 19,31 Furthermore, the applicability of normative imaging databases (typically comprising young, healthy subjects) in courtroom testimony is questionable. We also note that the use of normative imaging databases for comparisons with individual subjects for the purpose of expert witness testimony may constitute an inappropriate use of materials collected from research subjects.…”

Section: Scientific Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Neuroimages in Medical Testimony: Report of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference

Meltzer¹,

Sze

Rommelfanger³

et al. 2013

American Journal of Neuroradiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:With rapid advances in neuroimaging technology, there is growing concern over potential misuse of neuroradiologic imaging data in legal matters. On December 7 and 8, 2012, a multidisciplinary consensus conference, Use and Abuse of Neuroimaging in the Courtroom, was held at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Through this interactive forum, a highly select group of experts-including neuroradiologists, neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neuroscientists, legal scholars, imaging statisticians, judges, practicing attorneys, and neuroethicists-discussed the complex issues involved in the use of neuroimaging data entered into legal evidence and for associated expert testimony. The specific contexts of criminal cases, child abuse, and head trauma were especially considered. The purpose of the conference was to inform the development of guidelines on expert testimony for the American Society of Neuroradiology and to provide principles for courts on the ethical use of neuroimaging data as evidence. This report summarizes the conference and resulting recommendations. ABBREVIATIONS: AMA

show abstract

Lying in the scanner: Covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging

Cited by 117 publications

References 43 publications

Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

Does “lie to me” lie to you? An evaluation of facial clues to high-stakes deception

Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Neuroimages in Medical Testimony: Report of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About