Slashdot Mirror
Brain Scans to Identify Liars?
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."
But advocates for fMRI say it has the potential to be more accurate, because it zeros in on the source of lying, the brain, rather than using indirect measures
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"It's not a lie, if you believe it."
What's the MRI gonna tell you then?
How soon before the FBI and other agencies use biofeedback or other techniques to train their agents to defeat this?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
SCULLY: Now we're going to run a few tests. This is a simple lie detector. I'll ask you a few yes or no questions, and you just answer truthfully. Do you understand?
HOMER: Yes! (*The machine blows up*)
serenity now!
...and in Britain....
Authorities are discussing how to deploy lie-sensing devices on street corners. They say this will help protect the general public against crimes, and will augment the feature recognition systems already in place.
American Democrats are poised to follow the lead of their socialist compatriots.
More at 11:00.
Lie detectors have always been more of a psychological test than an actual method of detecting lies. That's why they're not admissible in court, nor can an employer force you to take one. Now suddenly they can read your brain patterns (which they don't actually understand, just generalize) and tell if you're lying?
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This won't work for those who have mental issues and actually believe they are telling the truth. When they scan your brain all the 'sectors' will still show up as true. However, this would still be useful after it has undergone some extended testing to ensure accuracy.
as detecting truth.
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
Guess I better break out the tin foil.
The for profit lab reports the test is accurate 90 percent of the time. Even after an independent study is performed, I'm still not sure I'd trust the accuracy. Controlled tests (where subjects are directed to steal an object) are very different than real world scenarios. Regardless, I suspect that, like polygraph tests, courts will eventually rule the outcome of such a procedure is not admissable evidence.
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said.
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.
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.
This sig rocks the casbah.
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!
Authorities, including the government, are rarely interested in truth. Facts, sometimes. Accuracy and methodology are not the main issues here - just the name "lie detector", just the concept in the body of a contraption is power. It will never go away.
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.
I know about the research in using an MRI's to see what someone is thinking and it's far from 100% this guy is full of it and what he's trying to do is extremely dangerous. This what I call a classic example of misuse of technology this guy should have his research license revoked for promoting junk like that.
. . .just the placing of a subject under observation was a form of power parading as science.
Which is how the polygraph "works." It's just a dowsing device, but useful for interrogations, in a very limited sense, to the extent that the subject believes in the power.
It's basically a "civilized" form of waterboarding.
Speaking of methodology, the test described in the article was not only not done double blind, it wasn't even done blind and there was no control. Everyone involved knew the subject had stolen something a priori, and everyone, including the subject, knew that everyone knew.
If I had been a subject I might well have been inclined to "beat" the system buy fucking with what everyone knew, i.e,, not following directions and taking neither the ring or the watch.
KFG
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
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.
Join Tor today!
I believe that this could be an important step forward. I'm sure some of you have read The Truth Machine. 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?
The technology assumes that there is a brain to be scanned. It's going to be pretty useless in determining which political cannidate is lying.
I'd like to point to: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1213245. htm
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..."
$50 hourly professional interrogator when you have about 20 questions to ask... sounds like a definate "No" from cost effective minded Congress...
Anyone remember the time when you were considered innocent until proven guilty?
At least now I know that George Bush will have an excuse giving him plausible deinability. He really believes his lies are the truth.
Of course, they will still have to restrict use of such a machine during a presidential press conference lest the important national security secret be uncovered that if it were used in such a presidential press conference it would reveal the shocking truth of virtually no brain activity at all.
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 sincere beliefs to you. Now if the person was secretly an atheist, and was nevertheless telling you that God exists, that would be a lie, and would (presumably) be detected by the machine.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Everyone has something to hide.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
For those who have never had an MRI of their head, it is important to understand that an MRI is not a trivial undertaking. I had one last year and had to be given anti-anxiety medication to be able to tolerate being stuck in a narrow tube for 45 minutes. I had never had a claustrophobic incident in my life previously but the confined space of an MRI gave me one. Anti-anxiety medication would likely affect the ability to do lie detection. Unless my health or life is at stake, I would not have an other one. If what the doctor was checking for wasn't a very serious condition, I would canceled test after getting in the machine. I would never take an job where I'd have to agree to be screened by MRI as lie dectector.
Man, and here I was worried about this machine catching me in a lie. It's a good thing... oohhh, shiny!
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
A colleague of mine (we work at the FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders), 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.
Last summer, there was as a piece on This American Life about a man going through a lie detector test as part of the process of obtaining a security clearance. Everything went fine until they started asking about child pornography. The guy freely admitted that he looked at porn, but he conceded that at some point, inadvertently during one of his porn viewing sessions there might have been an under aged person in one of the pictures. He didn't know for sure either way, but since he suspected that it was probable that in all the pornographic pictures he's seen an underage person was present at some point, he couldn't answer the question "Have you ever looked at child pornography?" with a definite "no", and in the end received no clearance and had answered questions in such a way that made him out to be a pedophile, despite the fact that the worst thing he did was look at porn too much.
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.
The Internet is generally stupid
But they'd know you hadn't taken either one.
Was the methodology really so bad that they determined the answer in advance?
It's a damned sight easier to dowse for water if you already know exactly where to find it, innit?
KFG