Slashdot Log In
Brain Scans to Identify Liars?
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:23 PM
from the hello-mr.-anderson dept.
from the hello-mr.-anderson dept.
dotc writes "After a bunch of sci-fi stories and rumors, now it looks like the future has become a reality -- a reliable, unbiased test using functional MRI brain scan to detect lying. The article author details a first-person account of undergoing the MRI 'deception task'. And the test is available now - use it to prove your innocence." From the article: "Laken said he's aiming to offer the fMRI service for use in situations like libel, slander and fraud where it's one person's word against another, and perhaps in employee screening by government agencies. Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit 367 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Swedish newspaper DN reports that the Israeli company Nemesysco has sent letters to researchers at the University of Stockholm, threatening legal action if they do not stop publishing findings (Google translation). An article called 'Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously' was pulled by the publisher after threats of a libel lawsuit." Online translations can be a little wonky; if your Swedish is as bad as mine, this English-language article describes the situation well.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely bogus. Look, if one can lie (and is good at it), it is going to be much more difficult to figure out whether they are telling the truth or not. To someone who knows what they are doing, polygraphs can be fooled and I would suspect that interpretation of fMRIs can also be confused by someone who "knows" how to lie. The trick is to avoid delivering "tells" that are physiologic manifestations of deception. The truth is that there is no foundation in physiology that mandates that one has to reveal anything when stating something that is not in fact, the truth. A good liar will be able to deceive the device and more importantly, the interpreter of the device because they are able to LIVE the lie.
Now, I am not saying that all means of determining lies by technology are doomed to fail. Rather, I believe that relying on any one (particularly trendy) method for determining lies will work. And the use of fMRI is simply a massively expensive and trendy polygraph, particularly because there are so many differences in cortical anatomy and regional differences between individuals. I would be much more comfortable with a derivative of cortical function such as the p300 cortical recognition waveform used as part of a more complete determination of truth using interview, cross checking of facts, polygraph and p300. Perhaps if the fMRI proves accurate to some degree, it could be integrated, but it should not be used exclusively.
And yes, I do know a little something about neurophysiologic monitoring as I teach neurophysiology labs to medical students.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt this would be useful at all against her...
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that the regions of neural activity for recall versus creativity visualisation are different, and the infinite number of possible questions a person could be asked related to the possible lie. It follows that the ability to "live the lie" could be countered by the skill of the questioner and by asking questions based on recalling rather than flat assertions of guilt or innocence.
For example a person's alibi for a criminal offence was that he stayed at home watching T.V. Instead of asking if he co
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, you make the assumption that the interviewer can know the questions to ask. If someone kills their spouse and there are no witnesses, it's any ones guess as to what REALLY happened. Sure, clues can give some indication (or even a good indication), but if the person didn't leave that much evidence, it's not certain that there will be lots of useful questions to ask.
Secondly, lots of what you remember IS "made up". You brain only remembers things it deems statistically significant, the rest you remember as "stuff that usually happens". So you can't really ask a bunch of general question and determine it to be true, whether the person is trying telling the truth or not.
Also, you need to be able to tell what a particular person's brain looks like when it's actually lying. Asking them to state something that is untrue does not necessarily give an accurate profile of how they are when they are really trying to be deceitful.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3, Interesting)
At that point the person is not lying, they are delusional.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, you're looking for signs of psychological stress. The same things that polygraphs look for, except this is more exact. But what happens if someone has difficulty recalling events? Various thoughts, including unrelated memories, oddball thoughts, and stressful attempts to retreive the memory, can all occur in a short period of time. Is this sudden use of various brain facilities indicitive of lying, or is the person just trying to recall? When this is compared to brain patterns of a question that the person is sure of (e.g. Did you skip work yesterday?), then the scan of the person trying to remember would look suspicious in comparison.
I REALLY do not trust this technology. Let's hope it sees just as many blockades as regular lie detectors.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Informative)
No, this is wrong. fMRI looks at blood oxygen levels (BOLD) in the brain - which indicate what part of the brain is being used. Lying requires more brain horsepower than telling the truth and the parts of the brain used for lying are known. They are different than just recall. This is indeed looking into the brain working and not a side effect like sweating. The recall parts of the brain are known too and thus can be used to determine if you've know a person. Flash a photograph of the person and if the recognition part fires, then it shows you've seen that person. You don't even have to punch a button...
Having said that, near IR is a much easier technique to look into the brain and only requires strapping some IR emitters/detectors on the subjects forehead. A link is here [oemagazine.com]. Cost is way less than the millions for an fMRI that requires a supercon magnet and Faraday cage. And the subject need not be as cooperative.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still dubious. If the subject has worked out his lie ahead of time, as any good liar will, then there is no creativity involved at the time of the scan.
There is no "part of the brain for lying," just as there is no part of the brain for making an omlette. There are parts of the brain that activate when a lie is told, but a good liar knowing he's going up against such a machine will go so far as to practice visualizing the lie.
Also, don't forget: creativity is part of telling the truth, too. Our memories are a lot more sketchy than we notice, and we often internally reconstruct events that are not explictly recorded. The human brain is not a VCR.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Informative)
Almost anything works better than a polygraph. They have a ridiculously high rate of false-positives and false-negatives.
What's more ridiculous is that many US govt agencies, despite ample scientific proof, still use polygraphs.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3, Interesting)
Teaching yourself to lie (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly true.
I imagine it would be hard to get a warrant for $*00,000 to get some guy tested on the fMRI.
MRIs are not quite that expensive. We (our family business) charge on average about $2000 with all the costs considered of operating them (electricity, cryogenic liquids, trained personnel, depreciation). fMRI is going to be a bit more expensive than that, but certainly not in the five to six figure range.
however, the very concept of the 100% accurate lie detector is scary. It would have a huge impact on politics, crime, and even personal issues. "Did you cheat on me? Do you look at porn a lot? Do you think I'm fat?"
What is more scary is the level of science education of those individuals who will be wanting to use these measures of veracity to determine truth. People are always looking for the quick answer and they are not always willing to put the time or effort into determining what is truth.
Parent
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3)
Sanity has no real bearing on one's ability to fabricate and elude detection successfully and in fact, likely reduces one's ability to maintain a fabricated reality.
Sociopaths are the obvious first source of skilled liars
Ummmm, really? I thought the first source of skilled liars were politicians.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3)
But....that is just what you were doing, right? Look, I was trying to keep it friendly, but you should know that while I don't really know Mr. Jobs, I have talked to him on occasion, and I do respect who he is and what he does.
That, my friend is the danger of talking trash about someone
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3, Funny)
No shit?
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Informative)
In old times when StB guys (= Czech version of KGB) trained their agents to defeat polygraph, the instruction went like this: "Imagine some very embarassing moment, some fact about you, something you did that would discredit you, something you do not want to be ever revealed. You don't say what it is but bring it up vividly in your memory when you are answering the easy control questions."
This technique of beating polygraph required serious training - while being hooked up to a polygraph - and it could fail if the tested person was not calm + composed, etc. But the point is that any method has a possible countermethods so we should not be too arrogant about "unbeatable brain scan"
Parent
To quote the genius that is George Constanza (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the MRI gonna tell you then?
How soon before FBI trains to defeat it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How soon before FBI trains to defeat it? (Score:3, Funny)
Oblig Simson quote (Score:5, Funny)
HOMER: Yes! (*The machine blows up*)
Re:Oblig Simson quote (Score:3, Funny)
Moe: No!
[buzz!]
Moe: All right, maybe I did. But I didn't shoot him.
[ding!]
Eddie: Checks out. OK, sir, you're free to go.
Moe: Good, 'cause I got a hot date tonight.
[buzz!]
Moe: _A_ date.
[buzz!]
Moe: Dinner with friends.
[buzz!]
Moe: Dinner alone.
[buzz!]
Moe: Watching TV alone.
[buzz!]
Moe: All right! I'm going to sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria's Secret cat
I'm not sure I buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy it. I'll believe that they have a more accurate method of telling when you experience psychological stress from lying, but the actual act of lying is such an indistinct thing that I can't believe that you have a portion of your brain that says "turn this on when you lie".
The fact that they want to make this admissable in a court of law is just plain scary.
Re:The Difference between the fMRI and a Polygraph (Score:3, Funny)
accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Only part of the picture (Score:5, Interesting)
It is likely there are disorders which "disable" parts of the neurological response. Pathological liars who show no remorse or guilt - even using the best scientific equiptment available - may still show up nothing. Conversely, there may be disorders which abnormally trigger responses. Synesthesia, for example, routes data to completely the wrong part of the brain. If it is possible for a related disorder to shunt signals into this "lie indictator", then a lie will be declared even if no lie has been given.
These are going to be rare problems involving the most extremes in society. In fact, the very people most likely to be put through such tests. I could be wrong - I'm not a neurologist - but I'm not going to be convinced of its safety as a lie detector until it has been proven effective on people who are naturally on the fringe of society anyway.
I would point out something else here, too. This test is going to seriously screw with the insanity plea. As I said, some mental disorders are extremely visible on fMRIs - I believe acute depression is one. Prosecution psychs (who absolutely do NOT want people being declared insane) are likely to fight tooth-and-nail to not have such devices used in such cases. The data would be far more vauable to the defence if any level of insanity was shown, as juries are more likely to be swayed by pretty pictures of abnormalities than technobaffle from an expert. They also couldn't get away with accusing the defendent of copying Law & Order, as the defence would have them strapped to the fMRI in no time flat.
Prosecutors would also likely be wary of it. They want high success rates, media glory and a shot at promotion up the legal system's ladder. Anything that might show that many witnesses are liars themselves would hurt their chances. That goes double in the UK if the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad are involved.
A bit of history for those who don't know it: West Midland's Serious Crime Squad was caught altering "confessions" and witness statements after the fact, torturing suspects and other things generally considered not very nice. I believe almost 200 people were released on appeal, after that was discovered.
A bit of tech history: It was discovered by using a device that contained a magnetic resonator, along with some very fine powder that was affected by magnetic fields. I think it was iron, but I'm not certain. Anyway, the statements are all typed up and then signed at the end by the witness or defendent. Paper that should not have shown very faint depressions was, and paper that should have did not, indicating that the sheets had been added after the signature had been written.
Apparently some investigation showed that this was indeed the case, and that most of the signed statements were totally different from the statements presented in court. After that, as they say, all hell broke loose.
It is certain that corruption in the UK police runs far, far deeper than was ever discovered. It is equally certain that American police (where pay may be affected by performance, and where the poor have no legal aid to speak of, so nobody to speak for them) are far worse. Introduce a machine that can actually prove that in court, and you risk blowing the lid of the entire system.
Even if everyone is intending to play fair (ha!), the number of appeals courts ruling for a wrongful conviction will almost inevitably go up. That's going to be expensive, as most States pay up in such cases. If it turns out that such rulings are likely to be common, I susp
Parent
Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more, they admit it doesn't actually detect lies, because people beat it; and that's under idealized lab conditions.
Do not go directly to jail.
KFG
Re:Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . (Score:3, Insightful)
Foucault spoke of this in Discipline and Punish, where just the placing of a subject under observation was a form of power parading as science.
Tin Foil Hat (Score:5, Funny)
Claimed validity (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth of the matter... (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean that lawyers will be required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God? Should make Court TV more interesting.
IANALDTE (Lie Detector Test Expert) but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh well, there's no such thing as a cheat-proof test.
Re:IANALDTE (Lie Detector Test Expert) but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
If the subject is telling you what they believe to be true, then they aren't lying. They may be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. This device is useful for detecting when someone is knowingly giving untrue responses. Seems to me it would be highly useful. I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.
Parent
You said you never slept with Shaniqua's cousin (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. Cannot see through belief. (Score:3, Insightful)
Other people have commented on how this is bogus, but I want to offer an additional perspective. You absolutely cannot detect when someone is lying with absolute certainty and faith in such a technology is misguided. Which brings me to the point. Consider this example: people will tell you they know for a fact that a god or other divine figure is real and constitutes a genuine presence in their lives. Yet of all the people who say this, how many of them could prove it? How many have actually had an experience where they have spoken with some otherworldy being? (The answer is, of course, none.) But these same people have been conditioned to believe that what they are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. They are absolutely convinced. So let me (attempt) to put this in general terms.
A lie is a false statement due largely to the context and circumstances—not simply physical factors within the entity which may be lying. For lie detection to be absolutely effective, it must take into consideration factors which are not measured when an individual is measured. That is, to determine if someone is lying, you have to determine if there are factors which might cause the person believes the lie is true.
I suppose we can make it more difficult, but people are trained to overcome polygraphs and VSA. I am sure people can be trained to believe a lie prior to a given test in order to pass as the test gets more sophisticated.
Re:Nonsense. Cannot see through belief. (Score:3, Informative)
I think you've missed the distinction between a lie and a falsehood. Those people are telling you the truth: they really do "know for a fact" (i.e. they are 100% sure) that God exists. Whether God actually exists or not is beside the point -- they are honestly divulging their sincer
The Truth Machine (Score:3, Interesting)
Fatal flaw (Score:3, Funny)
Implanted memories (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an article talking about how easy it is to implant memories that never existed into peoples minds. In fact, not only do people end up remembering things they've never seen, but they also end up adding additional information to the stories. It's a bit scary actually, but it's a good thought on how one might "break" the system.
Quoting the article:
"It's one thing when implanting false memories is a laboratory experiment, but it's quite another when the accused wrongly end up in jail..."
Re:Implanted memories (Score:3, Interesting)
Implanting memories is not the hard part, the hard part is that these false memories do not exhibit the same phenomenological characteristics as real memories.
For instance, s
Prove your innocence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember the time when you were considered innocent until proven guilty?
Prefrontal Cortex damage might interfer (Score:3, Interesting)
Antisocial Personality Disorder is a disorder which is characterized by a disregard for the rights and feelings of others. It was formally known as "Dysocial Personality Disorder," "Sociopathy," and "Psychopathy." A person with this disorder is often called, a "Psychopath." This however is not the proper term because it's meaning has been changed, and it's actually biased language; it is a label, although "Antisocial Personality Disorder" (ASPD) is a label in itself. It's just considered unethical to call someone a name.
ASPD is named this way because it gives emphasis on the social part of the disorder. However, it is misleading. Most people understand that "antisocial" means to be socially distant, sulking, or whatever. What it really means is "socially distructive." It is very true that those with ASPD disrupt the lives of those around them. Those with ASPD are often highly charming.
Characteristics of ASPD include callious, charming, grandious (huge ego), high sense of entitlement, impulsiveness, unreasonable life goals or failure to plan ahead, and others. Check out a wiki on this disorder [wikipedia.org].
In my research, I've found studies that demonstrate a lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brains of those with ASPD. One study [nih.gov] shows 11% less prefrontal grey matter in the brains of those with the disorder compared to control groups (sorry I couldn't link the full text).
The prefrontal cortex [wikipedia.org] is at the front of the brain and is responsible for higher thinking.
Another study is of a boy who was playing Russian Roulette. The boy got the bullet. He was said to have a future diagnosis of ASPD (he was too young for the diagnosis at the time). The surgery removed parts of his prefrontal cortex. No change in his personality, or minimal change, was reported by those who knew him.
Studies on rats show the importance of the prefrontal cortex in the characteristics of ASPD above. Rats with legions cut into their brains tended to be more impulsive. Other studies show a lack of self control, that is, inhibition of an action in a go/no-go task, was weaker in patients with ASPD. (I couldn't find these studies on the Internet, but they may be found in scholarly journels, however, it's been time since I've done this research, and I don't feel like getting up to search them) This shows a stronger link to the prefrontal cortex and these characteristics stated above.
This is important to know since a lot of these people will find themselves charged with crimes. Ted Bundy had this disorder, and so did most serial killers (I do not know if all of them had the disorder). When these people are assessed using the fMRI scan to see if they know more than they should, there might be a problem with their damaged prefrontal cortex. That is, this brain damage can interfer with lie-detection.
Lie Detectors (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I can tell, the only way to do this would be to get a baseline for lying from questions the examiner expects the interviewee to lie to, and then compare future questions' results to that. Sounds like the exact same problems with current lie detectors.
Does this work differently somehow? And if so how could it possibly prove that it's accurate given individual differences in cognitive function?
Unpleasantness of an MRI (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unpleasantness of an MRI (Score:4, Funny)
ha Ha HA
Yes, compared to the very beginnings of MRI, it is a quick and fairly uncomplicated procedure today.
Parent
100% honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with a purely 100% accurate 'truth telling' system is that it's too easy to neglect to measure intent or look at grey areas, especially when one freely admits to a minor infringement of the law or policy which put them inadvertently in a worst position. For example, in my younger days, from 1992 to 1996 I used to smoke marijuana on a pretty regular basis. I don't think it's a bad thing, and even though I don't do it anymore (I just don't feel like it) I have no issues with telling anyone who asks about it. Despite it being against the law, I don't see it any more dangerous then exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or jaywalking.
However, nearly 7 years ago I returned to my apartment one night from a particularly difficult day at work. One of my neighbors offered me a pipe of what I assumed was marijuana, which I accepted. I took a long draw on it, and noticed it didn't taste anything like what I was used to (and for that matter, didn't look right burning in the bowl). I said to my neighbor 'this is some really weird weed', to which he replied 'It's not weed, it's crack'. I don't even know if it got me 'high', I was so pissed off. I spent the next 4 or 5 hours in a fit of rage walking around the block. I never spoke to that neighbor again. To me, this was a big deal.
And now, if somebody put me through any 'truth' machine, and asked me about drug use, I'd have to say that I have, in fact, smoked crack. A device like this combined with specifically directed questions could easily paint me as a real junky, even though I'm not and I have some pretty strong feelings about the harder, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, and even though I haven't smoked (nor have desired to smoke) marijuana in over two years.
I would hope, though suspect that it won't come to pass, that certain measures would be put in place that would look at intent or degree before reaching a conclusion. If I was asked 'have you ever stolen anything', the answer would be yes. 26 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I took a matchbox car from a local supermarket without paying for it. I still feel guilty about it, and haven't stolen anything since. If absolutes were used and I was obliged to be completely honest, I'd end up being thief in addition to being a junky.
No man or woman is compleatly without sin, and without looking at intent a machine like this could be used to make anyone look like a monster.
Re:Airports? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone has something to hide.