Original articleDetecting Deception Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Section snippets
Subjects
The subjects were healthy unmedicated adults ages 18–50 years who were screened with a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) (First et al 1995), a pre-MRI screening form, a medical history, and a physical exam. They were evaluated with an Annett Handedness Scale (Annett 1970) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger et al 1983). A urine sample was obtained for a drug urinalysis and a urine pregnancy test (if a female of child-bearing potential).
Detecting Deception Paradigm
Results
There were three changes from the MBG to the MTG (see appendix). One question was changed because of subjects’ confusion about the question, and another question was changed for inappropriate grouping. For the MBG, the event time points corresponding to these questions were eliminated from the analysis. The third change was that physiological measurements were acquired on the MTG (data not reported).
Discussion
We have shown that fMRI can be used to detect deception within a cooperative individual. In addition, we have replicated the five regions of significant activation for Lie-minus-True at the group level for the third and fourth time (MBG, MTG). Most fMRI studies to date, including all fMRI studies of deception, have only been able to make assessments on the basis of group data (all subjects averaged together). This study is important because it detects deception in an individual, an important
References (31)
- et al.
Predictive power of the polygraphCan the “lie detector” really detect liars?
Lancet
(1986) AFNISoftware for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages
Comput Biomed Res
(1996)- et al.
Brain activity during simulated deceptionAn event-related functional magnetic resonance study
Neuroimage
(2002) - et al.
Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control
Neuroimage
(2005) A classification of hand preference by association analysis
Br J Psychol
(1970)- et al.
Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions
Hum Brain Mapp
(1999) - et al.
The Multi-Source Interference TaskValidation study with fMRI in individual subjects
Mol Psychiatry
(2003) - et al.
The counting StroopAn interference task specialized for functional neuroimaging - validation study with functional MRI
Hum Brain Mapp
(1998) - et al.
Dissociable functions in the medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortexEvidence from human neuroimaging studies
Cereb Cortex
(2000) - et al.
The truth will outInterrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials
Psychophysiology
(1991)
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID)
Experimental design and statistical parametric mapping
Images of the future
Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent
Hum Brain Mapp
Neural correlates of different types of deceptionAn fMRI investigation
Cereb Cortex
Cited by (249)
Cognitive control and dishonesty
2022, Trends in Cognitive SciencesThe neuropsychological basis of deception
2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second EditionDeception in the eyes of deceiver: A computer vision and machine learning based automated deception detection
2021, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :While most of the earlier research on deception detection is based on physiological sensors, such as the polygraph (Larson et al., 1932)or the subjective perception of trained experts undertaking a facial or frame-by-frame analysis (Ekman et al., 1991), each approach can potentially lead to biased human judgments, poor classification of deception and excessive analysis time throughput limits (Bond and DePaulo, 2006). While many of the technological approaches to detecting deception include non-linguistic vocal sounds (Howard and Kirchhubel, 2011), Electroencephalography (EEG) signals (Roshni and Bhavana, 2014), posture and body movement (Ekman et al., 1991; Sebanz and Shiffrar, 2009), brain imaging (Kozel et al., 2005), physiological sensors (Abouelenien et al., 2014), psycholinguistics and gesture (Rosas et al., 2015; Meservy et al., 2005) and thermal imaging (Basher and Reyer, 2014). Each method has overlapping as well as distinct indicators of deception.
The Effect of Synchrony of Happiness on Facial Expression of Negative Emotion When Lying
2024, Journal of Nonverbal BehaviorBuilding a second-opinion tool for classical polygraph
2023, Scientific Reports