Last year, functional magnetic resonance imaging made its debut in court. Virginia Hughes asks whether the technique is ready to weigh in on the fate of murderers.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings
Translational Psychiatry Open Access 26 October 2018
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Davatzikos, C. et al. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 62, 1218-1227 (2005).
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. & Gray, J. R. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 470-477 (2008).
Kiehl, K. A. et al. Psychiatry Res. 130, 297-312 (2004).
Additional information
See Editorial, page 325 , News Features, pages 344 and 347 , Opinion, page 351 , and online at http://www.nature.com/scienceincourt .
Virginia Hughes is a freelance writer in New York City.
Related links
Related links
Related external links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes, V. Science in court: Head case. Nature 464, 340–342 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/464340a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/464340a
This article is cited by
-
Democratizing cognitive technology: a proactive approach
Ethics and Information Technology (2019)
-
The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings
Translational Psychiatry (2018)
-
Discovering the Neural Nature of Moral Cognition? Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Challenges in Bioethical Research with Electroencephalography (EEG)
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (2017)
-
The Limitations and Potential of Neuroimaging in the Criminal Law
The Journal of Ethics (2014)
