Trends in Cognitive Sciences
OpinionDetecting deception: the scope and limits
Section snippets
Deception in experimental settings
The neuroimaging of deception has raised considerable interest and controversy that reaches well beyond academic circles 1, 2, 3, 4. There has been much discussion of the validity and possible real-life application of this new and rapidly developing field. The brain imaging community must be prepared for the increasing commercialization of these techniques and their use in legal cases and by the security industry. We would argue the need for caution in putting the results of experimental
Cognitive processes associated with deception
Executive processes enable humans to navigate successfully through deceptive communicative interactions by going through a series of cognitive operations, which are repeated if necessary (Box 1). Our intentional goals are directed to satisfying our aims on the basis of cooperation and trust. If deception is a goal, the most basic scenario requires inhibition of prepotent truth responses to make others believe what we want them to believe. Furthermore, representation of truth under the pretence
The view from neuroscience: evidence for many systems
As has been demonstrated extensively over the past decade, the cognitive processes involved in social interactions, such as occur during deception, map onto a wide range of cortical and subcortical networks. Furthermore, the activation of a specific region of the human brain is rarely affiliated to only one such cognitive process.
Neuroimaging studies of deception
As can be seen in the tasks listed in Table 1[19], much ingenuity has gone into developing novel formats for the laboratory study of deception. For example, comparisons have been made between spontaneous and prepared lies, with additional personal involvement implemented by contrasting autobiographical and non-autobiographical experience 19, 20. Perhaps the study that gets closest to real life is that of Abe et al. [21]. This study introduced a novel twist, in which one experimenter instructed
What can fMRI add in the search for neural markers of deception?
As rightly stressed by Wolpe et al. [5], traditional paradigms used to detect deceptive behavior, such as the polygraph, have many disadvantages. Can the newer techniques of brain imaging make the breakthrough from the laboratory and provide key evidence about deception for use in criminal cases? In our opinion, the problems with which the old technology has struggled have not been eliminated by the new technology (fMRI, electro-encephalography, near-infrared etc.). There is no doubt that the
The future: how can the study of deception be improved?
Given the current results of neuroimaging studies of deception and the current controversies surrounding the topic, we suggest that there are two key factors that need to be considered to improve the study of deception. First, we must recognize that deception involves a social dimension and needs to be studied as such (Box 2, Box 3). In particular, the pragmatics of social interaction need to be considered in further research [8]. We must recognize that deception can occur in the absence of
Acknowledgements
Our work is supported by the Danish Research Council for Culture and Communication, The Danish National Research Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.
References (54)
Action sets and decisions in the medial frontal cortex
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2004)Distinct portions of anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex are activated by reward processing in separable phases of decision-making cognition
Biol. Psychiatry
(2004)- et al.
How we predict what other people are going to do
Brain Res.
(2006) The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation
Neuroimage
(2004)Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2004)Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control
Neuroimage
(2005)Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study
Neuroimage
(2002)Amygdala activation when one is the target of deceit: did he lie to you or to someone else?
Neuroimage
(2006)Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2006)Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI
Neuroimage
(2002)
The cognitive control of emotion
Trends Cogn. Sci.
Reading hidden intentions in the human brain
Curr. Biol.
Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: application to lie detection
Neuroimage
Neural response suppression, haemodynamic repetition effects, and behavioural priming
Neuropsychologia
Neural correlates of feigned memory impairment
Neuroimage
Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging
Biol. Psychiatry
The truth about lying
Nature
Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils
Am. J. Bioeth.
The new lie detectors: neuroscience, deception, and the courts
Psychiatr. Serv.
Guidelines to catch a liar
Understanding Pragmatics
Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes
Annu. Rev. Psychol.
Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
Cited by (178)
Altered neural mechanisms of deception in individuals with autistic traits
2023, Brain and CognitionIntentional-Deception Detection Based on Facial Muscle Movements in an Interactive Social Context
2022, Pattern Recognition LettersThe influence of self and social image concerns on lying
2022, Games and Economic BehaviorThe neuropsychological basis of deception
2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second Edition