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

Abstract

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.

The engagement of mid‐ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and posterior brain regions in intentional cognitive activity

“…In addition to the work of Petrides [1994] and others, this result ties in well with the view that the mid-VLPFC is activated under a wide variety of conditions that require control processes (Fig. 3 and Table I; [Braver et al, 2003;Bunge et al, 2001;Cadoret et al, 2001;Cools et al, 2002;Dove et al, 2000Dove et al, , 2006Duncan and Owen, 2000;Houde et al, 2000;Jenkins et al, 1994;Kostopoulos and Petrides, 2003;Langleben et al, 2005;Turk et al, 2004]). Note that the coordinates reported in these studies are anatomically very close to the centre of our regions of interest in the mid-VLPFC (Fig.…”

“…This region -spreading from the outer surface along the frontal operculum to become continuous with reported activations in the anterior insula, close to the coordinates À41, 20, 0 and 37, 20, 3, [Duncan and Owen, 2000] -has shown activity in a broad range of tasks requiring control processes, from attention [Duncan and Owen, 2000], memory [Owen, 2000] and task switching [Dove et al, 2000] to less frequently studied tasks such as ''choosing a dinner date'' [Turk et al, 2004] and ''lying'' [Langleben et al, 2005], i.e. a range of tasks with different stimuli and contexts.…”

Neuroanatomical correlates of malingered memory impairment: Event-related fMRI of deception on a recognition memory task

“…In addition to regional cortical activity differing as a function of deceptive response type, our event-related fMRI investigation is one of two investigations to observe greater activation in the normal response condition relative to deception [21]. Similar to that investigation, our findings of greater dorsomedial parietal and occipital activation during normal recognition may reflect alternate visual object recognition and attentional resources that are otherwise not called into action or are suppressed during purposefully deceptive response modes.…”

“…Spence et al discovered activation in ventrolateral, dorsomedial, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (VLPFC, DMPFC, and DLPFC, respectively), as well as the inferior parietal lobule (IPL), during deceptive relative to normal responding for both auditory and visual stimuli. These regions have been commonly associated with deceptive responding in fMRI studies that followed and appear to reflect the generation and inhibition of responses, increased working memory load, meta-cognition of task performance, and monitoring of social cues necessary to deceive others [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. With the exception of two studies to be discussed below [17,23], the bulk of neuroimaging and ERP investigations into deceptive behavior have focused upon the neuroanatomical correlates involved in the suppression of prior knowledge by employing methodological variations of the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) [27].…”

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

“…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).…”