The Future of Lie Detection - WordPress.com...Integration of Future Technology to Existing...

The Future of Lie Detection

Jennifer M. C. Vendemia

Corey Boswell

Scott Meek

Michelle Phillips

Adam Craig

http://wp.me/P3kDLQ-2H

Extra Info

• This talk: http://wp.me/P3kDLQ-2i

• My Curriculum Vita and publications: http://wp.me/P3kDLQ-2i

• My contact information: http://wp.me/P3kDLQ-2i


http://wp.me/P3kDLQ-2i









Outline • A brief Bio about me.

• Integration of technology is about integration of personalities and skills as it is about widgets.

• Integration of Future Technology to Existing Technology • Why aren’t we using the best techniques now?

• The challenge of setting standards

• Using Advanced Technology to Study the Central Nervous System

• The Science of Deception Modeling • Central Nervous System Measures

• Event Related Potentials (Brain Waves)

• The Unbelievably short course on fMRI

• Bringing the Science back to “Normal” populations, and “Special” populations

• Theory of Mind

• Prepotency of Truth

• Pathological Liars: Antisocial Disorder, Conduct Disorder

• Malingering

• A study of ratio and deception

• Conclusions

• Future Directions


Integration of Future Technology to Existing

Technology

Future technologies will relate to existing

polygraph techniques in one of three ways:

1. they will provide another channel of information

within the standard polygraph-measuring paradigm

2. they will provide an alternate methodology to

existing exams.

3. they will provide a theory of deception that can be

applied to any dependent variable: fMRI – ERP –

Polygraph etc….


Polygraph Channel Assist

• Thermal imaging, voice recognition, and pupillometry

operate within the existing polygraph methodology,

because these measures assess peripheral nervous

system activity, which is easily manipulated by the

standard detection of deception exam

• However, they do not all measure the same aspects of PNS activity

• Researchers have not attempted to systematically document the ways

in which the measures differ from one another, therefore translation of

results from one study to another is difficult


The Difference between Deception Detection

and Studying Cognitive Neuroscientific

Modeling of Deception

Deception Detection

• Test Standard Exam Formats

• Apply new sensors (ERP, fMRI,

NIRS, Pupillometry, Exhaled Gasses…)

• Attempt new machine learning

or statistical approaches

Modeling Deception

• Multi-method Approach for

Solving A Levels of Analysis

Problem

• Study technologies that add

NEW information to model

• Converging Lines of Evidence

• Iterative Research with

Interlocking Clusters which

address aspects of a specific

framework


A perspective on

current Credibility

Assessment

Approaches.

The top panel shows the model

as applied to peripheral nervous

system measures and the bottom

panel shows the model applied to

central nervous system

measures.

A conceptual strategy for project allocation of studies related to CNS

measures of deception.

Unclassified Classified

Basic Research Applied Research Application

Analytical Assumptions Solutions

Methodological Solutions

Stimuli Solutions

Unity Solutions

Construct Solutions

RELIABILITY GENERALIZABILTY UTILITY

Test-retest Culture Paradigm Testing (DRT, CRT) Field Testing

VALIDITY Individual Differences Technological Applications

Construct : Does the model accurately map the underlying processes to the act of deception

Measurement Translation (Across CNS measures, and between CNS and PNS Measures)

Measurement: Do the measures assess the model parameters of interest.

Discriminate: Does the model assess the inferred construct of interest and not other inferred constructs

Practical Reality—PDD is a combination of a

clinical interview plus a piece of equipment

• Any technology must be

tailored to the situational

environment

• PDD examiners represent

a highly skilled workforce

that is already in place,

with a significant

experience that no

technology will replace


• We have a tendency to

skip to utility without

testing the other steps

• In order to translate

between these domains,

theoretical links must be

quantified

• Money goes to SEXY

science widgets before

DULL theory and testing

Inferential Measures of cortical activity

EEG, ERP, PET, Behavioral, fMRI, MRI Measurement Error

Neural correlates of underlying psychological processes

Structures, systems, patterns of activity State vs. Event

Lower order psychological constructs

Postulate model to map lower order constructs to higher

order construct

Hierarchical models with multiple levels of underlying

processes are possible

Attention, Cognition, Emotion, Motivation

Higher Order Social Psychological Construct

Deception: define and operationalize

Definition: identification of properties of underlying

dimensions

Operationalization: measurement of those

dimensions


Classic Research and Test Approach

Multimethod Approach for Solving A Levels of Analysis Problem

Polygraph is a general (summative

measure), while ERP and fMRI are very

specific measures


Cortical Control of EDA About 80% of variance in polygraph

findings are associated with

differences in EDA

Three Independent Systems

• Emotional: Ipsilateral control

from hypothalamus and

limbic system

• Orienting and Attention:

contralateral control from

prefrontal and premotor

cortex

• Gross motor and muscle

tone: contralateral reticular

activating system


The focus for the talk will be

on the emotional and the

attention systems.

• Emotional: Ipsilateral

control from

hypothalamus and limbic

system

• Orienting and Attention:

contralateral control from

prefrontal and premotor

cortex


Classic Polygraph Designs

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE

Questions are asked related to a crime or intention and compared to questions that are not related to a crime or intention

COMPARISON QUESTION

Images or questions involving a previously experienced event are presented infrequently among images involving an event that was not experienced


A sequence of questions are asked to which most individuals are expected to feel “guilty”, these are compared to crime relevant questions to which only the individuals who committed the crime would feel “guilty”

RELEVANT/IRRELEVANT

Classic Polygraph Designs

Mechanism: the closing of a

working memory loop when the

infrequently presented

information is presented

The action is independent of a

response, i.e. deception

Both perpetrators and victims

have identical responses in this

test

Individuals who have committed

multiple crimes may respond on

this test whether or not they

committed this particular crime

Mechanism: uncertain

mechanisms

Guilt Complexes

Response difficulty

Hobson’s Choice

Social interaction between

examiner and individual

Question order

Frequency of item

presentation

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE COMPARISON QUESTION RELEVANT/IRRELEVANT

Mechanism: uncertain

mechanisms,

Guilt Complexes

Response difficulty

Social interaction between

examiner and individual

Question order

Frequency of item

presentation

Early Studies Separating Exogenous and

Attentional Studies of Deception

• Type of memory

• Preparedness to deceive

• Switching between deceptive and truthful

strategies

• Characteristics of stimulus delivery


The Unbelievably Short Course on fMRI



Str

uctu

ral S

can

B

ET

Str

uctu

ral S

can

B

OLD

F

unctional S

can

Pixels vs Voxels


Pixel: a point in a 2-d space Voxel: a point in a 3-d space


BE

T S

tructu

ral S

can

B

OLD

F

unctional S

can

Structural Scan

Voxel = 1mm X 1mm x 1mm

Functional Scan

Voxel = 3.33mm X 3.33mm x 3.33mm

Measuring Deoxyhemoglobin

• fMRI measurements

are of amount of

deoxyhemoglobin per

voxel

• We assume that

amount of

deoxygenated

hemoglobin is

predictive of neuronal

activity


Reprinted from:

http://www.neurology.org/content/79/2/e10/

F1.large.jpg

BOLD response reflects

pooled local field

potential activity (Logothetis et al, 2001)


Calcarine

Sulci

Fusiform

Gyri

fMRI Hemodynamic Response

Impulse-Response Systems

• Impulse: single event that evokes changes in a

system

• Assumed to be of infinitely short duration

• Response: Resulting change in system

=

Impulses

Response

Output

Percent Signal Change

• Peak / mean(baseline)

• Often used as a basic

measure of “amount of

processing”

• Amplitude variable across

subjects, age groups, etc.

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

500

505

200

205

1%

1%

Social Evaluation

Ethics: Is this an appropriate situation in which to lie (norm)?

Theory of mind: Is my lie convincing my audience?

Cognitive Processing

LTM: Do I remember the truth?

Error detection: Is the lie consistent?

Inhibition: Remember not to tell the truth…

Emotional Processing

Mood

Emotion

Valence

Arousal

Semantics

Cognition

Emotions

There is no one “Process” called

Lying

Social

Cognition

The goal of our research is to isolate

the various cognitive processes

involved in the act of deception

Semantic memory studies • Separate deception from preparedness, attention and memory

• Establish baseline characteristics of truthful and deceptive waveforms

Autobiographical Information Studies • Establish baseline characteristics of truthful and deceptive waveforms to

episodic memory

• Determine if these waveforms differ from those to semantic memory lies

• Determine the effects of practice

Mock Crime Studies • Determine if waveforms measured in this study are more similar to those in

the semantic memory study or the autobiographical memory study

• Determine the effects of memory decay

Long Term

Working Memory

Resting

Executive Control

Response Inhibition

Working Memory

Attention Shifting

Resource Allocation

Exogenous Attention Endogenous Attention

Long Term

Memory

Re-evaluation

Disengage

Generate Deception

Social Schema

Decision Making

Frequency

Coping Mechanisms

Cognitive Control

Modality

Intensity

Query

Response

Social Evaluation

A Framework for Studying Deception

There is no one part of the brain involved in

Deception


Brain Regions are Correlated with Cognition, Social

Evaluation, and Emotional Processes Involved in

Deception


Lateral View of Cortex Medial View of Cortex

Bro

dm

an

n A

rea

s

An

ato

mic

al R

eg

ion

s

Brodmann

Areas

Anatomical Names Special Regions of

Interest

6 Supplementary Motor Area (A)

6, 8 Superior Frontal Gyrus (B)

9, 10 Medial Frontal Cortex '(C)

9, 10, 46 Middle Frontal Gyrus (D)Dorsolateral

Prefrontal Cortex

10, 11, 47 Orbital Frontal CortexVentromedial

Prefrontal Cortex

11,12 Orbital Gyri '(E)

24, 32 Anterior Cingulate Gyrus (F)

Inferior Gyrus

44 Pars Opercularis (G)

45 Pars Triangularis (H)

47 Pars Orbitalis (I)Ventral Lateral

Prefrontal Cortex

22 Superior Temporal Lobe (J)

39 Angular Gyrus (K)

40 Supramarginal Gyrus (L)

Broca's Area

Wernicke's Area

In our first study N= 11 in 2000

• We were interested mostly in looking at

working memory areas and attention • We wanted to verify that fMRI relative activation would

correspond with ERP activation

• We know what cognitive processes cause brain waves, while

we don’t know what causes fMRI

The recording scenario

ERPs are

recorded as

participants

answer a

series of

questions

truthfully or

deceptively

EEG is

measured from

3 – 256

electrodes on

the head

Figure 3. 18 Regions derived

from the 128-channel net

corresponding to the frontal,

central, parietal, temporal,

and occipital locations of the

10-20 system.






10-20 system.






10-20 system.

Raw Data: Regions derived from the 128-channel net corresponding to the

frontal, central, parietal, temporal, and occipital locations of the 10-20

system (Jasper, 1958).

HD-ERP Analysis: Spatial PCA followed by a Temporal PCA

Spatial Loadings

Temporal Loadings

Normalized mV

Aspects of deception in the ERP

0 250 500 750ms

P3a: An early attention

related component with

an anterior distribution and

positive deflection. Occurs

when one switches

tasks such as from telling

the truth to telling a lie.

N400: A component that

occurs when what we’ve heard,

said, or seen does not match the

contents of our semantic (and

possibly) episodic memory. Anterior

distribution, negative deflection

P3b: A late component that

is related to decision

making, workload, inhibition,

and attention, and context

updating.

Experimental Procedure ● Two-Stimulus Paradigm

● ERP Recording during one Session

● fMRI Recording during one Session

● Participants were randomly color cued to answer questions about themselves truthfully (80 trials) and deceptively (80 trials)

Figure 1. Time course of stimulus presentation and recording for the two-

stimulus paradigm.

I attended Weston Nile High School.

True

+

Stimulus 1 2500 ms

Fixation 750 ms

Stimulus 2 2500 ms

Onset of Stimulus Recording

Figure 1. Time course of stimulus presentation and recording for the two-

stimulus paradigm.

I attended Weston Nile

High School.

True

+

Stimulus 1 2500 ms

Fixation 750 ms

Stimulus 2 2500 ms


I attended Weston Nile High School.

True

+

Stimulus 1 2500 ms

Fixation 750 ms

Stimulus 2 2500 ms


I attended Weston Nile

High School.

True

+

Stimulus 1 2500 ms

Fixation 750 ms

Stimulus 2 2500 ms


ERP Results

ERP Results

ERP Results

Early Attention

Exogenous Attention

Reflexive/ Orienting

Executive Control

Intensity Frequency Modality

Coping

Mechanisms Cognitive

Control

Escape potential Consequences

Endogenous Attention

Raw Data

P3a: Attention, Error Response Monitoring

Prior Group Dipole Source Analysis, showed that activity in this area could be explained by a

single Source in the Right Anterior Cingulate (BA 32; Vendemia et al., 2005)

800 Ms 0

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0 800

ms

Z(m

V)

Attention Shifting, Resource Allocation,

Working Memory

Endogenous Attention

Occipital/parietal

Region

Multimodal

Processing

Anterior Cingulate

Attention Shifting

Resource

Allocation BA

24,32

Working Memory

BA 9,10

P1: positive

visual

component

100ms

N2b: attention

processing 220-

300 ms

P3a: Attention

shifting

component 250 –

350 ms

P3b: Working

memory 350 –

600 ms

Time window difference between truth

and deception 20 - 40 ms

The exchange of

information from the N2 to

the P3a

Attention Based “Load-Switching”

minmax FLORls ttt

● Determine Minimum FL and Maximum OR Latency

● Load-Switching Window is Difference:

tls = 64 ms tls = 40 ms

* Neocortical

interaction time,

tls, is greater for

deception.

● Algorithm: first FL MIN after OR MAX

Figure adapted from Schillaci & Vendemia

(under review). IEEE.

Individual Dipole Models of the P3a

Resource allocation, attention switching, response conflict – all studies

Lee, Langleben, Ganis, Kozel, Faro, Spence, Phan

Raw Data Spatial Loadings Temporal Loadings

P3a: Selective Attention, Attention Switching, Response Selection

Prior Group Dipole Source Analysis, showed that activity in this area could be explained by a

single Source in the Left Anterior Cingulate (BA 24; Vendemia et al., 2005)

800 Ms 0

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0 800

ms

Z(m

V)

N400: Shows that although memory is accessed during the task

it is not exclusively correlated with deception.

Left Anterior Temporal

Previous Group Dipole Source Analysis, showed that activity in this area had a variety of

sources ( Vendemia et al., 2005)

800 Ms

0

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0 800

ms

Z(m

V)

P3b: Decision making and workload

Previous Group Dipole Source Analysis, showed that activity in this area had a variety of sources including

those for motor response( Vendemia et al., 2005)

800 Ms 0

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0 800

ms

Z(m

V)

Mapping Brain Waves to fMRI Data

P3a, P3b, N4, and late positive complex dipole solutions projected

onto the axial, saggital and coronal MRI sections for one

representative participant.

Axial Sagittal CoronalAxial Sagittal Coronal

Anterior Cingulate fMRI Activations During Deception

Across All Participants

Cingulate Gyrus fMRI Activations During Deception


Middle Frontal fMRI Activations During

Deception Across All Participants

Inferior Frontal Gyrus Activations During Deception


Medial Frontal fMRI Activations During Deception


Middle Temporal fMRI Activations During

Deception Across all Participants

Superior Frontal Gyrus fMRI Activations During


Superior Temporal Gyrus fMRI Activations During


Group fMRI Results

• BA10: L Superior Frontal

• BA 21: L Middle Temporal

• BA46: L Middle Frontal

• BA 6: Left Middle Frontal

• BA6: Superior Frontal

• BA39: R Inferior Parietal

• BA21: R Middle Temporal

• BA8: R Superior Frontal

• BA 22: Right Superior Temporal


• BA39: R Inferior Parietal

• BA24 L Anterior Cingulate

• BA21: R Middle Temporal

• BA8: R Superior Frontal

• BA 22: Right Superior Temporal

Attention, Error Response

Monitoring

Memory is Accessed

Decision making and workload

• BA10: L Superior Frontal

• BA 21: L Middle Temporal

Study 2: Deception and Semantic Memory

The goal of this study was to see if we could manipulate where the deceptive response was time locked.

The results from this study would help us determine how to design questions.

Participants Normal or corrected to normal vision

No known neurological disorders

College students, ages 18 – 24 Study 1, N = 34 (24 women, 10 men)

Study 2, N = 43 (25 women, 18 men)

Study 3, N = 28 ( 16 women, 12 men

Method

Randomly assigned a deceptive presentation color

Practiced on a paper and pencil version of the task

Additional computer-based practice with 67% correct threshold to continue to experimental trials

Three blocks of 60 randomized trials each

Paradigm

Incongruent

Truthful

Congruent

Deceptive

Incongruent

Deceptive

Congruent

Truthful

+ True

The grass

is green. + False

The grass

is green.+ False

The grass

is green. + True

Stimulus 2

1000 ms

Fixation

Prompt

750 ms

Stimulus 1

2500 ms

The grass

is green.

Incongruent

Truthful

Congruent

Deceptive

Incongruent

Deceptive

Congruent

Truthful

+ True

The grass

is green. + False

The grass

is green.+ False

The grass

is green. + True

Stimulus 2

1000 ms

Fixation

Prompt

750 ms

Stimulus 1

2500 ms

The grass

is green.

Participants respond truthfully to one color and lie to the other.

Response

Agree

Response

Agree

Response

Disagree

Response

Disagree

Predictability of Second Stimulus Across

Experiments

Experiment Deception Congruity Predictability

1 Both

2 Deception

3 Neither

Analyses

Data were recorded from the 128 channel HD electrode system

Data were segmented for 100 ms preceding Stimulus 2 and for 1000 ms after stimulus 2

After screening and filtering, data were submitted to Temporal Principal Components Analyses

Components with loadings above .85 were submitted to 2 X 2 repeated measures ANOVAs

Stimulus 1

(2500ms) Fixation

Prompt

(750 ms) Stimulus 2 (Response Termination)

Results: Reaction Time Data Deception RTs significantly greater than truthful across all experiments

Incongru

ent

Lie

Task

Condit

ion

Congru

ent

Lie

Congru

ent

Tru

e

Incongru

ent

Tru

e

Incongru

ent

Lie

1.4 µV

-1.4 µV

Topographical

Distribution of

Waveforms in

Experiment 2.

Results: P3a

When deception was predictable but congruity was not and when neither were predictable, the PCA component of the early frontally-distributed waveform was greater for deceptive responses than truthful responses F(1, 42) = 4.79, p = .034 and F(1, 27) = 4.44, p = .045.

Results: P3b

When congruity was predictable but deception was not and when neither were predictable, the P3b component was significantly smaller in the deceptive condition than in the truthful condition, F(1, 42) = 5.37, p = .028 and F(1, 27) = 6.63, p = .028.

Topographic distribution of Principal Component scores

Exp. 2 Exp. 3

Congruent Incongruent

Deceptive

Tru

thfu

l D

eceptive

T

ruth

ful

Results: N4

When deception and

congruity were predictable,

and when only deception

was predictable, the mean

PCA scores for the N4 were

significantly more negative

in the incongruent

condition than in the

congruent condition [F(1,

33) = 22.59, p < .0001, and

F(1,42) = 46.75, p < .0001],

respectively. However,

when neither were

predictable the N4

waveform was not

observed in the data.

The PCA scores for deceptive responding were significantly greater than those for truthful

responding when both congruity and deception were predictable F (1, 33) = 5.33, p = .027. The

relationship between the conditions was similar when congruity was predictable; however, the

effect only appeared as an interaction with the congruity effect.

Deceptive

Tru

thfu

l

Congruent Incongruent

Summary P3b

• Donchin (1981) P3b relates to context updating and response selection.

• While Comerchero & Polich (1999) degree of attention required for a discrimination task affects P3b size.

• In the current study the P3b was smaller in deceptive conditions, suggesting that these stimuli created higher processing demands.

P3a

• Comerchero difficult tasks redirection of attention can produce a P3a.

• The task in the present study was extremely difficult.

• Redirection of attention to differing processing demands may have produced the P3a.

• In Study 1, the first stimulus predicted every processing demand for the second stimulus. This resulted in a suppression of the P3a effect.

N4

• In conditions with of predictability

Study 3: Mock Crime Study with Brain Wave

Measures

Goal: Can we model a classic mock crime paradigm

• Can we predict deception with similar rates of

accuracy to a polygraph?


• In the mock crime study participants

either committed a mock crime or

participated in the control condition

• They were asked a series of questions • Non-relevant crime questions to which both

groups responded truthfully

• Control Relevant questions about the control

condition to which all participants responded

truthfully

• Crime relevant questions to which mock

crime participants responded deceptively

• Probable lie questions to which all

participants lied

• Trivial questions to which all participants

responded truthfully

• The N2b, P3a, N4, and P3b were

measured for each of these conditions

Memory: The Mock

Crime Study

Non-

relevant

crime

Control

relevant

Crime

relevant

Probable

lie

Trivial

N2b P3a N4 P3b

0.7 - 1.0

0.4 - 0.7

0.1 - 0.4

-0.1 - -0.1

-0.4 - -0.1

-0.7- -0.4

-1.0- -0.7

Normalized

Amplitude mV

It is possible, similar to previous research, to

separate groups based on their waveforms

Observed Predicted

Control Steal Test

Percent Correct

Control 26 2 92.9%

Steal Test 3 23 88.5%

Overall Percentage

53.7% 46.3% 90.7%

HD-ERP Model: The final

model consisted of six

predictors

1. Mid-parietal P3b latency

for trivial questions

2. right parietal P3b

amplitude for probable Lie

questions

3. right parietal P3a latency

for trivial questions,

4. right anterior temporal P3b

amplitude for control

questions

5. right parietal N2 latency for

trivial questions

6. mid-parietal P3a amplitude

for crime-relevant

questions.

Conclusions from the Mock

Crime Study

• Behavioral data predicted involvement in a mock crime in almost 82% of cases

• Brain wave data successfully classified participants nearly 91% of the time.

• TP3b is the strongest predictor of deceptive behavior.

• Of note, participants in the control condition lied to only 20% of the questions (probable lie questions). • The P3b was a strong predictor to these questions because control

subjects generated an oddball P3.

• As control participants remembered items in two conditions, but were only deceptive to one, these results show for the first time that the P3 oddball can be produced by deception without the interference of memory.

• Participants in the mock crime condition responded deceptively to 40% of the questions. Because they did not generate an oddball P3, we believe that the deception to the mock crime questions was identical in nature to the probable lie questions.

Predicting deceptive behavior with ERPs using a Relevant / Irrelevant

paradigm

fMRI Research into deception


fMRI Research into deception


A Side Note on Current Research in fMRI: Regions of Activation sited in

Bhaat et al (2008)

Area 9, 10

Area 8

Caudate

Sensory Motor Strip

Cerebellum

Area 17

Area 32

VLPFC

Area 21

*Additional regions: Hippocampal gyrus, left inferior parietal

Variability in fMRI Approaches

• Within Subject Noise • Subject movement

• Respiratory, cardiac artifacts

• Scanner instability

• Attentional modulation

• Inconsistent cognitive strategy

• Learning effects

• Drugs and medications

• Anxiety

• Countermeasures

• Between Subject Noise • Consistent differences in

factors related to within subject noise

• Anatomic variability

• Cytoarchitectonic variability

• Variability in venous drainage patterns

• Differences in hemoglobin concentrations

• Between Paradigm Noise • Inconsistent definition of the

type of deception

• DIfferences in the rate, number, and type of stimuli presented

• Differences in the type of memory to which the participants deceive

• Differences in reward/punishment scenario

Individual Trials fMRI Studies

Example paradigm differences

• Spence, Farrow, Herford, Wilkinson, Zheng, and Woodruff (2001): directed lies to episodic memory

• Langleben, Schroeder, Maldjian, Gur, McDonald, Ragland, O’Brien, and Childress (2002): directed lies in a digit recall type task with cards

• Lee, Liu, Tan, Chan, Mahankali, Feng, Hou, Fox, and Gao (2002): Feigned memory impairment to digit span and autobiographical memories

• Ganis, Kosslyn, Stose, Thompson, and Yurgelun-Todd (2003): Planned lies vs. spontaneous lies to long latency episodic information

• Kozel, Padgett, and George (2004): Planned lies to recently short latency episodic information

• Faro, Mohamed, Gordon, Platek, Williams, and Ahmad (2004): Planned lies to short latency episodic information

Conclusions from MRI Studies

• Motivation: Kozel, Langleben, Phan

• Orbitofrontal activation only present in Kozel

• Autobiographical Memory: Ganis, Lee, Spence

• Temporal activation present only in LEE

• Weighing of multiple information sources—all studies

• Prefrontal cortex: Lee, Ganis, Kozel, Faro

• Resource allocation, attention switching, response conflict – all studies

• Lee, Langleben, Ganis, Kozel, Faro, Spence, Phan

• Regions of confusion

• Cuneus, cerebellum

Suggestions for fMRI

• Choose paradigms for testing appropriate to

screening

• Systematically investigate processes known

to be associated with deception

• Ground work research in this area has yet to

be conducted

• Combine fMRI with other measures, in order

to provide tangential evidence for findings

Adapted From Peterson et al., 1999

Attention in Cognitively Challenging Tasks like the Stroop is

Similar to the Directed Lie Task with Two-Stimuli

Adapted From Christ et al., 2009

Summary of Deception Studies Summary of Stroop Test Studies

Study 4: Does the percentage of deceptive

responses during a paradigm affect the fMRI

measure?

The fMRI studies use a variety of response ratios

In a survey of 20 fMRI and PET studies

10% - 50% of trials were deceptive in standard paradigms

20 %-100% of trials were deceptive in malingering paradigms

Paradigm

Three Groups

• Group 1 = 20% deception (n=15)



Hypotheses

• In all groups deception

would be associated with

greater relative activation

in prefrontal areas than

truthtelling

• Relative activation related

to WM load, due to

keeping both truthful and

deceptive response sets

would be greatest during

the 50% conditions as

measured by activation in

the medial and lateral

frontal cortex as well as

the parietal cortex Adapted From Christ et al., 2009

Group Results

N = 15

20% Lie, 80% Truth

50% Lie, 50% Truth

N=20

L > T

True > Lie

Group Results

N = 16

80% Lie, 20% Truth

• The only identified affect of switching….

Working Memory Hypothesis: RT for truthful and deceptive

responses across differing percentages of deceptive responses

* Effect of switching covaried

Results

• Relative activation L>T during the 50% condition is

greater than during the 20% condition in regions

related working memory, inhibition, and task

switching

• In the 20% condition, relative activation in the medial

prefrontal and parietal cortex associated with

inhibition was not greater for deceptive responses

• In the 20% condition, relative activation in regions of

the parietal cortex associated with working memory

was not present


Conclusions

• The ratio of deceptive responses is an

important variable in paradigms of deception

• However, lateral prefrontal regions

associated with working memory load and

attention switching are relatively more active

regardless of ratio

Study 5: Deception vs. Poor Recall

• This series of behavioral, ERP and fMRI

studies utilized the Misinformation Effect

Prepotency of Truthful Responses

Many researchers assume that truthful

responses are prepotent

Priority over other responses

Maturational primacy

Repetition with positive reinforcement

Greater motivational charge

Researchers tend to forget that links (retrieval cues)

to memory are associated with hippocampal

activation and it may be this link that is prepotent

rather than the actual memory

Prepotency in WM and/or LTM

• LTM: For example, Ganis argues that truthful

knowledge is gained through multimodal

world interaction which results in broader

neural networks with more retrieval cues.

• WM: Vrij asserts that recall is not a

necessary step in the act of deception

the prepotency of truthful responses in wm would

explain the longer latency between truthful and

deceptive responses that occurs even in situations

where participants lie on 80 – 90% of the trials

Behavioral

• RT using Misinformation and Deception

Lo

g T

ran

sfo

rme

d R

Ts

(ms)

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

Factual Information Misinformation

Narrative Content

Truthful

Deception

**

*

Meek, Phillips, Boswell, Vendemia (2013).

ERP

• P3b suppression (P3)

• Red = Deception

• Dotted = Misinformation

Meek, Phillips, Boswell, Vendemia (2013).

Methods

• Day 1: Misinformation task

• View images – break – view images again with

misleading items

• 8 vignettes total, consisting of 50 images each

• Second set of images will contain 12 critical items

with different information

Methods

• Day 2: MRI scanning

• 144 test items (18 per vignette)

• Participants will be instructed to lie or tell the truth

based on a cue (text color – purple or green)

• Deception occurs on half the blocks of questions,

truth on the other half

• Counterbalanced across participants (both blocks

and color cues)

Imaging Parameters

• TR = 2200 ms

• 1 fMRI sessions of 586 echo-planar imaging

volumes (~21.5 minutes)

• T1-weighted structural scans also obtained

Trial

• 15s break screen between blocks • Reminder of color cues

• Fixation screen jittered • 400, 800, 1200, 1600 ms

• 3s question screen

• 3.5s response screen • Target screen

Behavioral

Decp > Truth

• Scale represents z-scores values 0 – 6

• Christ et al., (2009) – Meta-analysis of 12

deceptive fMRI studies showed consistent

prefrontal cortex activation for deceptive >

truthful responses

Decp Mis > Decp Cons

• Dorsal PFC and left parietal

Decp Cons > Decp Mis

• Ventral PFC, ACC, and bilateral STG

% Signal Change

• Right superior

medial frontal gyrus

Right inferior medial

frontal gyrus

Conclusions

• Pattern of activity during deceptive

misinformation responses looks like that seen

during source monitoring tasks

• Mitchell and Johnson (2009) in a review of

source monitoring studies showed that

retrieval engages coordination between

dorsal PFC and posterior regions

• Particularly parietal regions for heavy WM tasks

Conclusions

• Activity during

deception consistent

responses in the ACC

suggests a stronger

inhibitory control

component

• Christ et al., (2009)

• Bilateral STG activation

suggests stronger

memory

representations

• Consistent items were

shown in both

presentations of slides

Yang compared sMRIs in groups of pathological

liars, people with antisocial personality disorder,

and normal controls (N=49)

Review: Pathological Liars, Antisocial

Disorder, Conduct Disorder

Copyright © 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

YANG, Y. et al. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2007;190:174-175

Whole-brain-corrected prefrontal white matter volumes

(IFC), (MFC), (OFC), (SFC) in pathological liars (white),

normal controls (grey) and antisocial controls (Black).

IFC

MFC

OFC

SFC

Pathological Liars

Pathological or Unsuccessful Liars?

Yang: pathological liars

have larger volumes of

white matter combined with

reductions in prefrontal

grey matter

Spence: the population

Yang sampled (employees

at temp agencies)

suggests that the gray-

white matter relationship is

more indicative of

unsuccessful habitual liars

1. Yang et al., 2005

2. Spence, 2005

Individuals with Antisocial Personality

Disorder have difficulty integrating the

language and emotional components of

their thoughts, and thus fail to notice

contradictions in their speech.

Semantic Aphasia (in this case): the

failure to integrate emotional meaning

with language

Cocaine? I've never used it. I've never tried cocaine. I

think I might have tried it once and got nothing out of

it. Just snorted a little bit. And I just don't mess with it.

It's too expensive. And I suppose if I was on the

streets and had enough of it, I might get into it. But

I'm strictly a marijuana man. All I do is... I love to

smoke a reefer. And valiums. And of course alcohol.

—Ted Bundy

Pathological Liars vs. Murderers

• Raine found a similar pattern

of activation PET PFC

reduction with greater

activation sub cortical white

matter in affective murderers

• Similar to the liars in Yang’s

study, the murders committed

by the people in Raine’s

research tend to be the

consequence of unsuccessful

social strategy

Conclusion: Spence’s explanation

for Yang’s findings seems

plausible at this time Affective Murderer

Non-Affective Murderer

Strategizing: Factitious Disorder and Malingering

1. The main difference between a malingered memory paradigm and

other deception paradigms is the need to employ a metacognitive

strategy

2. When adopting a metacognitive strategy for feigned memory

impairment that employs responding correctly to a proportion of

items, the calculation of correct responses involves regions of the

fronto-parietal cortex[1,2].

Malingering Paradigm: For an imagined reward,

participants faked amnesia to digits and autobiographical

information

1. Lee, Liu, Ting, Huang, & Chan, 2009

2. Cowell, Egan, Code, Harasy, & Watson, 2000; Pesenti, Thioux, Seron, & De Volder, 200

Malingering: Lee results

Study 6: Identifying Different Classes of Lies

• Different cortical resources are employed

during different classes of lies

• But what are the classes of lies?


Previous Work

Lie Journal and Autobiographical Story Paradigms

DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, and Epstein (1996)

Participants lied overwhelmingly about themselves.

More lies for psychological reasons (e.g. protection from embarrassment) rather than for personal advantage (e.g. material gain).

Kashy and DePaulo (1996)

Manipulativeness positively correlated with rate of lying

A concern with self-presentation not associated with rate of lying

Social anxiety also not associated with rate of lying

DePaulo, Ansfield, Kirkendol, & Boden (2004)

Identified motive and origin categories of serious lies

Serious lies seemed to originate most often in “bad” behavior viewed as immoral, illegal, or unjustifiable

Three most frequently used motives (instrumental, avoid punishment or blame, and entitlement) were generally related to covering up this behavior

Less frequently used motives included lying for reasons of identity management and self-presentation and lying specifically to hurt another person

Design Strategy

Step 1:

Copra Search

Step 2: Independent

Ratings based on observable characteristics

of each deceptive

word

Step 3:

Expert raters of final

categories based on

belongingness

Step 4: Experiment 1: Questionnaire Administration

Step 5: Redesign of

Questionnaire and retesting

Step 6: Multiple site

testing

Copra Search of Seven Dictionaries (American, Oxford,

Encarta, Cambridge, Webster, Wordsmyth, Ultralingua)

• 111 words related to deception

• Each of the words rated based on 21 different dimensions

• Assigned 1 or 0 for each dimension

• No dimensions were considered mutually

Problems with the Words

• Some words are archaic

• Backbite

• Some phrases are slang and archaic

• Sell down the river

• Some words are VERY SPECIFIC

• Perjure

• We tested all of our words for familiarity with

our students

We examined every relationship

between all 111 words

We developed categories based on groups of

Words that were strongly related to one another

Deception Experts

• A questionnaire was developed to evaluate belongingness of individual words to each category

• Questionnaire was administered to 14 experts in the field of deception

• Procedure • Come up with a definition that best fits each group of words (e.g.

lies for gain)

• Read through all the words in each group and rate them based on how well the word matches your definition

• 0 = not related, 1 = poorly related, 2 = moderately related, 3 = highly related, and 4 = perfectly related

For each category, we chose one word that was the best

representative of that category and then the experts

evaluated how closely the other words matched the

representative word

Interpersonal Ploy category

Mock

Put On

Cant

PlantPut Up a Front

Bunk

Bull

Queer

Simulate

Whopper

Pose

Phony

MockPut On

Cant

PlantPut Up a Front

Bunk

Bull

Queer

Simulate

Whopper

Pose

Phony

----- .60 – 1.00

----- .30 - .60

----- .10 - .30

----- .0 -.10

----- Negative Correlation

The final categories based on the expert ratings

Looking at Psychology to Study Deception

Personality Variables State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970)

Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977)

International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999): THE IPIP HAS BEEN TRANSLATED INTO MANY LANGUAGES

Agreeableness

Deliberateness

Extraversion

Fairness

Impression Management

Integrity

Macchiavellianism (Manipulativeness)

Neuroticism

Responsibility

Risk-Taking

Self-Monitoring

Sincerity

Looking at Psychology to Study Deception

Measure

Standard

Personality

Items (IPIP,

2006)

How do personality measures relate to Deception measures

Avoidance

Avoidance lies involve attempts to escape or minimize penalties associated

with a specific incidence of inappropriate behavior.

Low sincerity,

Low responsibility

Low Integrity

Interpersonal Ploys and Social Enhancements

Social enhancements have an underlying motivation of

improving one’s social standing by impressing others or gaining

sympathy from others

Low sincerity

High Impression management

Interpersonal ploys involve the underlying motivation of

managing the quality of an ongoing conversation by avoiding

unpleasant information Low sincerity

High Impression management

Higher Depression

Concealment

Concealment lies involve hypocritical acts in which people misrepresent a

quality within themselves.

Low Sincerity

Low Integrity

High Depression

Gainful Misleading

Gainful misleading refers to lies that are employed to extract a specific benefit

from another person. Unlike avoidance lies, which occur after an act, and

concealment lies, which occur in an ongoing manner; gainful misleading lies

represent a deception during a specific action such as a fraud.

Low Fairness

High Impression Management

Verbal Malice

Verbal malice lies involve deceptions that tend to cause harm to another person

while simultaneously benefiting the person causing the harm.

Low Sincerity

Low Integrity

Low Fairness

Conclusions

Not all deceptions are equal. Different categories of deceptions do exist

And those categories are associated with personality characteristics

Future Directions

• Metacognitive Tasks

• Is the ratio of deceptive responses critical when

individuals are able to self-select their patterns of

response

• Special Populations

• Skilled liars

• Individuals with poor deceptive skills: children with

autism spectrum disorders, individuals with

Parkinson’s Disease

Date post:	06-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

The Future of Lie Detection - WordPress.com...Integration of Future Technology to Existing...

Documents