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."

Comments

Do not rely completely on fMRI

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this works better then a Polygraph

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.

Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI

[MitsuMirage]

Basically, you're looking for signs of psychological stress.
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. 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.

To quote the genius that is George Constanza

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not a lie, if you believe it."

What's the MRI gonna tell you then?

Oblig Simson quote

[NoGuffCheck]

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*)

Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . .

[kfg]

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

Tin Foil Hat

[oakleeman]

Guess I better break out the tin foil.

Claimed validity

[jm92956n]

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.

Prove your innocence?

[ion_]

use it to prove your innocence

Anyone remember the time when you were considered innocent until proven guilty?