U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

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
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