Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges

Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 15, pages 123–131 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 19 February 2014

This article has been updated

Abstract

Functional MRI (fMRI)-based lie detection has been marketed as a tool for enhancing personnel selection, strengthening national security and protecting personal reputations, and at least three US courts have been asked to admit the results of lie detection scans as evidence during trials. How well does fMRI-based lie detection perform, and how should the courts, and society more generally, respond? Here, we address various questions — some of which are based on a meta-analysis of published studies — concerning the scientific state of the art in fMRI-based lie detection and its legal status, and discuss broader ethical and societal implications. We close with three general policy recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Results of the ALE analysis of the functional MRI 'deception' literature.

Change history

  • 19 February 2014

    An incorrect paper was cited as reference 2 of this article. The correct paper is Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A. & Schendan, H. E. Lying in the scanner: covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 55, 312–319 (2011). This has been corrected in the online version.

References

  1. National Research Council. The polygraph and lie detection (The National Academies, 2003).

  2. Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A . & Schendan, H. E. Lying in the scanner: covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 55, 312–319 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heckman, K. E. & Happel, M. D. in Educing information. Interrogation: science and art 63–94 (NDIC, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spence, S. A. et al. Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport 12, 2849–2853 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langleben, D. D. et al. Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage 15, 727–732 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, T. M. C. et al. Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum. Brain Mapp. 15, 157–164 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hakun, J. G. et al. fMRI investigation of the cognitive structure of the Concealed Information Test. Neurocase 14, 59–67 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kozel, F. A. et al. Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol. Psychiatry 58, 605–613 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S. M., Stose, S., Thompson, W. L. & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb. Cortex 13, 830–836 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bles, M. & Haynes, J.-D. Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology. Neurocase 14, 82–92 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Christ, S. E., van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E. & McDermott, K. B. The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cereb. Cortex 19, 1557–1566 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner, A. in A Judge's Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction (eds Gazzaniga, M. S. & Rakoff, J. S.) 13–25 (University of California, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eickhoff, S. B. et al. Coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a random-effects approach based on empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 2907–2926 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gamer, M., Klimecki, O., Bauermann, T., Stoeter, P. & Vossel, G. fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 506–515 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanwisher, N. in Using Imaging to Identify Deceit: Scientific and Ethical Questions (eds Bizzi, E. et al.) 7–13 (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Langleben, D. D. et al. Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Hum. Brain Mapp. 26, 262–272 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Davatzikos, C. et al. Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: application to lie detection. Neuroimage 28, 663–668 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greene, J. D. & Paxton, J. M. Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12506–12511 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kozel, F. A. et al. A pilot study of functional magnetic resonance imaging brain correlates of deception in healthy young men. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 16, 295–305 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kozel, F. A., Padgett, T. M. & George, M. S. A replication study of the neural correlates of deception. Behav. Neurosci. 118, 852–856 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Monteleone, G. T. et al. Detection of deception using fMRI: better than chance, but well below perfection. Soc. Neurosci. 4, 528–538 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kozel, F. A. et al. Functional MRI detection of deception after committing a mock sabotage crime. J. Forensic Sci. 54, 220–231 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jin, B. et al. Feature selection for fMRI-based deception detection. BMC Bioinformatics 10 (Suppl. 9), S15 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nose, I., Murai, J. & Taira, M. Disclosing concealed information on the basis of cortical activations. Neuroimage 44, 1380–1386 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee, T. M. C., Leung, M.-K., Lee, T. M. Y., Raine, A. & Chan, C. C. H. I want to lie about not knowing you, but my precuneus refuses to cooperate. Sci. Rep. 3, 1636 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ganis, G., Morris, R. R. & Kosslyn, S. M. Neural processes underlying self- and other-related lies: an individual difference approach using fMRI. Soc. Neurosci. 4, 539–553 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson, N. E. & Kiehl, K. A. The psychopath magnetized: insights from brain imaging. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 52–60 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R. & Langleben, D. D. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. Am. J. Bioeth. 5, 39–49 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang, W. et al. A functional MRI study of deception among offenders with antisocial personality disorders. Neuroscience 244, 90–98 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mohamed, F. B. et al. Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation—initial experience. Radiology 238, 679–688 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abe, N. The neurobiology of deception: evidence from neuroimaging and loss-of-function studies. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 22, 594–600 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Raichle, M. E. et al. Practice-related changes in human brain functional anatomy during nonmotor learning. Cereb. Cortex 4, 8–26 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hu, X., Chen, H. & Fu, G. A repeated lie becomes a truth? The effect of intentional control and training on deception. Front. Psychol. 3, 488 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Proverbio, A. M., Vanutelli, M. E. & Adorni, R. Can you catch a liar? How negative emotions affect brain responses when lying or telling the truth. PLoS ONE 8, e59383 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Phelps, E. A. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 27–53 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bush, G., Luu, P. & Posner, M. I. Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 215–222 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Levens, S. M. & Phelps, E. A. Insula and orbital frontal cortex activity underlying emotion interference resolution in working memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2790–2803 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee, T. M. C., Lee, T. M. Y., Raine, A. & Chan, C. C. H. Lying about the valence of affective pictures: an fMRI study. PLoS ONE 5, e12291 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Uncapher, M. R., Chow, T., Rissman, J., Eberhart, J. & Wagner, A. D. Strategic influences on memory expression: effects of countermeasures and memory strength on the neural decoding of past experience. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 905.13 (2012).

  40. Rissman, J., Greely, H. T. & Wagner, A. D. Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9849–9854 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Frye v. United States, 293 F1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923).

  42. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 (1993).

  43. Wilson v. Corestaff Services L. P., 900 N. Y. S.2nd 639 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).

  44. United States of America v. Lorne Allan Semrau 07–10074 (2010).

  45. Gary James Smith v. State of Maryland 418 Md 587, 16 A.3d 977 (2011).

  46. Schauer, F. Can bad science be good evidence — neuroscience, lie detection and beyond. Cornell Law Rev. 95, 1191–1220 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Langleben, D. D. & Moriarty, J. C. Using brain imaging for lie detection: where science, law, and policy collide. Psychol. Public Policy Law 19, 222–234 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (The National Academies, 2009).

  49. Greely, H. T. & Illes, J. Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am. J. Law Med. 33, 377–431 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tovino, S. A. Imaging body structure and mapping brain function: a historical approach. Am. J. Law Med. 33, 193–228 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Costanzo, M. & Krauss, D. Forensic and Legal Psychology (Macmillan, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Marks, J. H. Interrogational neuroimaging in counterterrorism: a 'no-brainer' or a human rights hazard? Am. J. Law Med. 33, 483–500 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Farahany, N. A. Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Rev. 64, 351 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pustilnik, A. C. in The Constitution and the Future of the Criminal Law in America Ch. 7 (eds Parry, J. T. & Richardson, L. S.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Shen, F. X. Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 36, 653–713 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stoller, S. E. & Wolpe, P. R. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the Fifth Amendment. Am. J. Law Med. 33, 359–375 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Jones, O. D., Wagner, A. D., Faigman, D. L. & Raichle, M. E. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 14, 730–736 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Bond, C. F. & DePaulo, B. M. Accuracy of deception judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 214–234 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32, 88–106 (1969).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Scherer, K. R., Feldstein, S., Bond, R. N. & Rosenthal, R. Vocal cues to deception: a comparative channel approach. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 14, 409–425 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. DePaulo, B. M. et al. Cues to deception. Psychol. Bull. 129, 74–118 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Vrij, A. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities 2nd edn (Wiley, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Vrij, A. Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection a plea to change police practice. Crim. Justice Behav. 35, 1323–1336 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schafer, E. D. in Forensic Science (Embar-Seddon, A. & Pass, A. D.) 40 (Salem, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bunn, G. C. The lie detector, wonder woman and liberty: the life and works of William Moulton Marston. Hist. Hum. Sci. 10, 91–119 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M. & Lieblich, I. Trial by polygraph: scientific and juridical issues in lie detection. Behav. Sci. Law 4, 459–479 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Alder, K. The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession (Simon and Schuster, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Farwell, L. A. & Smith, S. S. Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal. J. Forensic Sci. 46, 135–143 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Aggarwal, N. K. Neuroimaging, culture, and forensic psychiatry. J. Am. Acad. Psychiat Law 37, 239–244 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tian, F., Sharma, V., Kozel, F. A. & Liu, H. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate hemodynamic responses to deception in the prefrontal cortex. Brain Res. 1303, 120–130 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Bok, S. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (Random House Digital, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Barnes, J. A. A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A. Lying in everyday life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lykken, D. T. Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test. Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 26, 214–222 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M. & Kremnitzer, M. Trial by polygraph: reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court. Law Hum. Behav. 26, 527–541 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Essen, D. C. A population-average, landmark- and surface-based (PALS) atlas of the human cerebral cortex. Neuroimage 28, 635–662 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank O. Jones for guidance on the legal issues discussed herein, and T. Chow for assistance with the meta-analysis. They gratefully acknowledge the support of the Law and Neuroscience Project, which is funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The writing of this article was partially supported by the US National Institutes of Health grant R01-HD055689. This article reflects the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of either the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation or the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Center for Neuroscience & Society, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19104, Pennsylvania, USA

    Martha J. Farah

  2. Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, 08540, New Jersey, USA

    J. Benjamin Hutchinson

  3. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, 10003, New York, USA

    Elizabeth A. Phelps

  4. Nathan Kline Institute, Orangeburg, 10962, New York, USA

    Elizabeth A. Phelps

  5. Department of Psychology and Neurosciences Program, Stanford University, Stanford, 94305, California, USA

    Anthony D. Wagner

Authors
  1. Martha J. Farah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Benjamin Hutchinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth A. Phelps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony D. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martha J. Farah.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

PowerPoint slides

Supplementary information

Supplementary information S1 (box)

Activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis — methods (PDF 203 kb)

Supplementary information S2 (table)

Study-specific contrasts and coordinates included in the ALE meta-analysis. (PDF 678 kb)

Supplementary information S3 (table)

Regions consistently demonstrating greater activity in fMRI studies of deception. (PDF 171 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farah, M., Hutchinson, J., Phelps, E. et al. Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci 15, 123–131 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3665

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3665

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing