Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology Science

Brain Scans to Identify Liars? 324

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brain Scans to Identify Liars?

Comments Filter:
  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:29AM (#14596269) Homepage Journal
    How soon before the FBI and other agencies use biofeedback or other techniques to train their agents to defeat this?
  • by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <frogbert@gma i l . c om> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:32AM (#14596282)
    I think this works better then a Polygraph because rather then look at symptoms and signs of lying this examines whether you are looking in your memory when recounting a story, or you are looking at your "creative" part of your brain. However if this is the case I suppose you could fool it by having someone tell you your false story and attempting to remember them telling you it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:33AM (#14596284)
    Polygraph tests measure vital signs. To confuse results, one need only have a concealed method of self inflicting pain (such as an upturned thumbtack inside a shoe) to turn truthful answers into lies and vice versa.
  • by Vorondil28 ( 864578 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:36AM (#14596300) Journal
    This is cool that it may present better accuracy than traditional polygraph tests, but the whole concept of lie-detection remains flawed. 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.

    Oh well, there's no such thing as a cheat-proof test.
  • by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:37AM (#14596303) Homepage Journal
    You raise an important point, but note that I said for those that are able to LIVE the lie, then it will be less effective. The ability to trap someone in a current lie is part of the interview process and in that case, it *might* be possible. However, to someone who has rehearsed the lie and is able to live it by recalling the lie from memory as if it had actually happened, then regionality of blood flow or glucose utilization in the brain becomes a much less useful measure.

  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:38AM (#14596308)
    Somebody tell Maury Povich about this! There are tons of jilted men and women out there just waiting to find out if their spouses cheated on them, and with an MRI lie detector, Maury can find out for sure. Now that's quality television!

  • I think this works better then a Polygraph because rather then look at symptoms and signs of lying this examines whether you are looking in your memory when recounting a story, or you are looking at your "creative" part of your brain.

    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.
  • by jtangen ( 861406 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:07AM (#14596411)
    The question has always been why people in an *investigative* profession (e.g., police, law), where the ultimate result should be facts, concern themselves so much with the veracity of testimony. We would be better served, I think, with less testimony, and more facts.
  • The Truth Machine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Coldeagle ( 624205 ) * on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:15AM (#14596433)
    I believe that this could be an important step forward. I'm sure some of you have read The Truth Machine [truthmachine.com]. Something of this sort coming to reality is both exciting and scary. Exciting because it would allow the innocent to be proven so, and the truly guilty (You know where the lawyer can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even though we all know that they're likely guilty) taken down. The scary thing is what about my little white lies that we all tell? My future wife asks, "Honey, what do you think of this?" You think it's hideous but you don't want to hurt her feelings...Pop quiz hot shot, what do you say? WHAT DO YOU SAY?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:21AM (#14596448)
    Amen. My ex was like that. She'd make up lies, and manage to make herself BELIEVE it - and not just small things... She managed to make herself believe her father had raped her, and once also that he was dead... Anything! There's some REALLY sick people out there that lie about EVERYTHING non-stop, no reasons needed, they just do, some sort of obsessive compulsive thing about lying I guess... No one could tell when she was lying (not even herself it seems). I always wondered how she could stick to all these thousands of lies reliably, all the time, everyday, for years... It just seems something impossible to do to me, but she sure managed to do it. (No I don't miss the psycho bitch)

    I doubt this would be useful at all against her...
  • by warewolfe ( 877477 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:24AM (#14596455) Homepage

    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 committed the offence, the questioner could ask what show did he watch? What was the plot of a particular show, what was the actor wearing, how many times did the suspect go to the bathroom, did he eat a snack, if so, what was it?

    Comparing how the suspect's brain works when lying versus telling the truth seems to be the hard way about going about things, better to check recall versus creativity.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:31AM (#14596478)
    It is possible, but probably more difficult. If I understand it correctly, it looks for whether the brain is active in the areas related to memory or the areas related to creativity and fabrication. If the former, flagged as true. If latter, flagged as lie.

    The way to defeat is to come up with the entire story in advance and rehearse to the point where it's all coming out of memory. Same idea as defeating the polygraph, though with different emphasis.
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:35AM (#14596498) Homepage
    However, to someone who has rehearsed the lie and is able to live it by recalling the lie from memory as if it had actually happened, then regionality of blood flow or glucose utilization in the brain becomes a much less useful measure.


    At that point the person is not lying, they are delusional.

  • by peterfa ( 941523 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:13AM (#14596592)
    I don't know much about lying but I have researched Antisocial Personality Disorer. This disorder relates in that a lot of the most henious crimes were commit by people with this disorder. Also, my research has led me to believe that this disorder is strongly coorelated to the prefrontal cortex. This may be important to the topic since people with this disorder account for a large percentage of crimes, are expert liars, and fill up our prisons (I mean American prisons, for other countries, I don't know). This brain damage just may interfer with the accuracy of this lie-detection.

    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)

    by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:16AM (#14596598)

    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?

  • by jd ( 1658 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kapimi]> on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:18AM (#14596603) Homepage Journal
    There are disorders (like Aspergers) where fMRI results are all screwed anyway. (Aspergers shows up as abnormalities in the pre-frontal lobes, other autistic disorders show up there and in parts of the mid-section of the brain.) Without some excellent baselines for assorted disorders, it will be much harder for those interpreting the results to know if they have a lie or an abnormality typical of a particular sufferer.

    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

  • by Saib0t ( 204692 ) <[saibot] [at] [hesperia-mud.org]> on Monday January 30, 2006 @05:48AM (#14597029)
    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.
    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, scores on standardized tests (such as the DES [Dissociative Experience Scale], with all its shortcomings) show that subjects with false memories score way lower with regards to contextual memories than, say, associated thoughts or feelings.

    As such, even people who believe their own lies could be detected by the presence or absence of certain phenomenological characteristics in the lies they "recall". Obviously these things require the full cooperation of the subject...

  • by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @06:00AM (#14597047) Homepage
    I wonder if you can use the machine as a training aid to learn how to lie better. You could practise telling a lie, and then look at the scan to see what unusual brain activity there was. After a while you will get a feeling for which feelings you experience correspond to which parts of the brain. Then you might be able to gradually train yourself to not experience that brain activity and those feelings. With luck this would also reduce the external physiological signs of lying. You might also start to convince yourself that you were telling the truth.
  • by tgv ( 254536 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @07:27AM (#14597206) Journal
    A colleague of mine (we work at the FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders [www.ru.nl]), told me that the anterior cingulate (which is found in these trials), is involved in sensosomatory processes, such as respiration, heart beats, skin sensitiviy... That means that seeing activation there in an fMRI scan is exactly the same as finding a difference in heart rate, respiratory rate or skin resistance, except it is much more expensive.

You have a message from the operator.

Working...