Science and Society | Published:

Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges

Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 15, pages 123131 (2014) | Download Citation

  • 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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

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. 1.

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

  2. 2.

    , , , . & Lying in the scanner: covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 55, 312–319 (2011).

  3. 3.

    & in Educing information. Interrogation: science and art 63–94 (NDIC, 2006).

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

    , , , & Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb. Cortex 13, 830–836 (2003).

  10. 10.

    & Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology. Neurocase 14, 82–92 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , , , & The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cereb. Cortex 19, 1557–1566 (2009).

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

    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).

  14. 14.

    , , , & fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 506–515 (2012).

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

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

  17. 17.

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

  18. 18.

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

  19. 19.

    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).

  20. 20.

    , & A replication study of the neural correlates of deception. Behav. Neurosci. 118, 852–856 (2004).

  21. 21.

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

  22. 22.

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

  23. 23.

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

  24. 24.

    , & Disclosing concealed information on the basis of cortical activations. Neuroimage 44, 1380–1386 (2009).

  25. 25.

    , , , & I want to lie about not knowing you, but my precuneus refuses to cooperate. Sci. Rep. 3, 1636 (2013).

  26. 26.

    , & Neural processes underlying self- and other-related lies: an individual difference approach using fMRI. Soc. Neurosci. 4, 539–553 (2009).

  27. 27.

    & The psychopath magnetized: insights from brain imaging. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 52–60 (2012).

  28. 28.

    , & Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. Am. J. Bioeth. 5, 39–49 (2005).

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    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).

  31. 31.

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

  32. 32.

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

  33. 33.

    , & A repeated lie becomes a truth? The effect of intentional control and training on deception. Front. Psychol. 3, 488 (2012).

  34. 34.

    , & Can you catch a liar? How negative emotions affect brain responses when lying or telling the truth. PLoS ONE 8, e59383 (2013).

  35. 35.

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

  36. 36.

    , & Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 215–222 (2000).

  37. 37.

    & Insula and orbital frontal cortex activity underlying emotion interference resolution in working memory. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2790–2803 (2010).

  38. 38.

    , , & Lying about the valence of affective pictures: an fMRI study. PLoS ONE 5, e12291 (2010).

  39. 39.

    , , , & 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. 40.

    , & Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9849–9854 (2010).

  41. 41.

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

  42. 42.

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

  43. 43.

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

  44. 44.

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

  45. 45.

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

  46. 46.

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

  47. 47.

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

  48. 48.

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

  49. 49.

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

  50. 50.

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

  51. 51.

    & Forensic and Legal Psychology (Macmillan, 2010).

  52. 52.

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

  53. 53.

    Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Rev. 64, 351 (2012).

  54. 54.

    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).

  55. 55.

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

  56. 56.

    & Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the Fifth Amendment. Am. J. Law Med. 33, 359–375 (2007).

  57. 57.

    , , & Neuroscientists in court. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 14, 730–736 (2013).

  58. 58.

    & Accuracy of deception judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 214–234 (2006).

  59. 59.

    & Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32, 88–106 (1969).

  60. 60.

    , , & Vocal cues to deception: a comparative channel approach. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 14, 409–425 (1985).

  61. 61.

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

  62. 62.

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

  63. 63.

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

  64. 64.

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

  65. 65.

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

  66. 66.

    , & Trial by polygraph: scientific and juridical issues in lie detection. Behav. Sci. Law 4, 459–479 (1986).

  67. 67.

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

  68. 68.

    & Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal. J. Forensic Sci. 46, 135–143 (2001).

  69. 69.

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

  70. 70.

    , , & Functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate hemodynamic responses to deception in the prefrontal cortex. Brain Res. 1303, 120–130 (2009).

  71. 71.

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

  72. 72.

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

  73. 73.

    , , , & Lying in everyday life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996).

  74. 74.

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

  75. 75.

    , & Trial by polygraph: reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court. Law Hum. Behav. 26, 527–541 (2002).

  76. 76.

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

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

Affiliations

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

    • Martha J. Farah
  2. Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.

    • J. Benjamin Hutchinson
  3. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA.  Nathan Kline Institute, Orangeburg, New York 10962, USA.

    • Elizabeth A. Phelps
  4. Department of Psychology and Neurosciences Program, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

    • Anthony D. Wagner

Authors

  1. Search for Martha J. Farah in:

  2. Search for J. Benjamin Hutchinson in:

  3. Search for Elizabeth A. Phelps in:

  4. Search for Anthony D. Wagner in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martha J. Farah.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information S1 (box)

    Activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis — methods

  2. 2.

    Supplementary information S2 (table)

    Study-specific contrasts and coordinates included in the ALE meta-analysis.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary information S3 (table)

    Regions consistently demonstrating greater activity in fMRI studies of deception.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3665

Further reading