Functional MRI Detection of Deception After Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime

• NCJ Number: 225912
• Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 54 Issue: 1 Dated: January 2009 Pages: 220-231
• Author(s): F. Andrew Kozel M.D., M.S.C.R.; Kevin A. Johnson Ph.D.; Emily L. Grenesko B.A.; Steven J. Laken Ph.D.; Samet Kose M.D.; Xinghua Lu M.D., Ph.D.; Dean Pollina Ph.D.; Andrew Ryan Ph.D.; Mark S. George M.D.
• Date Published: January 2009
• Length: 12 pages
• Grant Number(s): W74V8H-04-1-0010; 5K23MH070897
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Mental Health; US Dept of Defense Polygraph Institute; Cephos Corp.
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Since using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect deception is feasible in simple laboratory paradigms, this study used a mock sabotage scenario in order to test whether this technology would also be effective in a scenario closer to a real-world situation.

Abstract

Based on the findings, the study concludes that BOLD fMRI can currently be used to detect deception regarding past events with high sensitivity, but low specificity. This suggests the test would be helpful in “ruling out” a potential suspect, i.e., determining that he is not lying about being innocent of the crime at issue; however, it is not helpful in “ruling in” a suspect, i.e., a person found to be lying about being innocent. More work with direct comparisons of paradigms and participant samples is needed in order to understand how the various technologies compare in detecting deception. Although the diagnostic ability of BOLD fMRI is greater than chance, future work should focus on improving specificity and using more realistic testing in order to enhance the use of this technology in real-world applications. Healthy, nonmedicated adults were recruited from the community, screened, and randomized to either a mock-crime group or a no-crime group. The mock-crime group damaged and stole compact discs that contained incriminating video footage, and the no-crime group did not perform a task. The mock-crime group also picked up an envelope from a researcher, and the no-crime group did not pick up an envelope. Both groups were instructed to report that they picked up an envelope, but did not sabotage any video evidence. Later, participants went to the imaging center, where they were scanned while being asked questions regarding the mock crime. 4 tables, 5 figures, and 25 references