BRAIN FUNCTION BASED DECEPTION DETECTION TECHNIQUES IN FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Keywords:
Polygraph, Brain Fingerprinting, BEOS, fMRIAbstract
A lie is considered to be said when it helps one to save his self-esteem or avoid punishment, and thereby helps to conceal the truth. Suspects lie just because they want to conceal their deeds/actions. Therefore, we require an instrument that would assist the examiner to find out if the accused concerned is telling a truth or lie. Efforts have been made to develop methods so that the effects of such manipulations can be detected using which one can infer that deception has been made. Traditionally, for this purpose, the Polygraph/Lie-detection test has been used. The lie-detection test measures the autonomic variables such as respiration, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, and skin resistance of a suspect while he is being questioned. Other methods of physiological measurement, such as EEG, psychological tests, analysis of facial expressions, body movements, and evaluation of voice have been developed into techniques, which can reflect the presence of deception or lying in a subject. The validity of all these techniques remains a matter of constant debate. Recent advances in technology have enabled direct observation of the activities of the human brain during various cognitive operations, including lying. Measuring changes in the brain associated with detection of familiarity with units of information drawn from a crime scenario, which is known only to the perpetrator has shown potentiality to identify the perpetrator. Deception requires conscious manipulation of the truth recalled, which in turn results in the use of increased utilization of resources in the brain, whereas the truth could have been expressed with minimum utilization of such resources. Yet another method that is developed does not depend on either detection of familiarity or deception but on retrieval of originally acquired experiential knowledge of participation without requiring expression of such retrieved information.
References
1. Lykken, D.T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385-388. 2. Lykken, D.T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44:258-262.
3. Lykken DT. (1991). Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 26(3):214- 22.
4. Lykken, David Thoreson. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (Plenum Press, 1998).
5. Raskin, D.C., and C.R. Honts 2002 The comparison question test. Pp. 1-47 in Handbook of Polygraph Testing, M. Kleiner, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6. Raskin, David, “Polygraph Techniques for the Detection of Deception,” in Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, ed. by David Raskin (Springer Publishing Co.,1989.).
7. Ben-Shakhar G, Elaad E.(2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol. 2003 Feb;88(1):131-51.
8. Ben-Shakhar G, Elaad E.(2002). Effects of questions’ repetition and variation on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test: a reexamination. J Appl Psychol. 87(5):972-7.
9. Langleben D, Schroeder L, Maldjian J, Gur R, McDonald S, Ragland J, O’Brien C, Childress A. 2002. Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study. NeuroImage 15:727-732.
10. Kozel F, Padget T, George M. 2004. A Replication Study of the Neural Correlates of Deception. Behav. Neurosci. 118(4):852-856.
11. Mohamed, F.B., Faro, S.H., Gordon, N.J., Platek, S.M., Ahmad, H., Williams, J.M. (2006). Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation—initial experience. Radiology. 238(2):679-88.Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (2001). Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46,1:1-9
12. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1988;25:445.
13. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991; 28:531-541.
14. Vahid Abootalebi, Mohammad Hassan Moradi, Mohammad Ali Khalilzadeh (2009). A new approach for EEG feature extraction in P300-based lie detection. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine archive, 94 (1) 48-57.
15. Shen Tua, Hong Lia, Jerwen Jouc, Qinglin Zhanga, et al. (2008). An event-related potential study of deception to self preferences. Brain Research,Volume 1247, 142-148.
16. Rosenfeld JP, Labkovsky E, Winograd M, Lui MA, Vandenboom C, Chedid E. (2008). The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): a new, countermeasure-resistant, accurate, P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology. 45(6):906-19.
17. Mukundan, C.R. (2007b) Brain Experience: Neuroexperiential Perspectives of Brain-Mind. Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi.
18. Mukundan, C.R. (2007a) Brian Signature Profiling for Crime Detection. In: Krian Rao, Indira Jai Prakas, Srinivasan K. (Eds.) Mindscapes: Global Perspectives on Psychology in Mental Health. NIMHANS Publication. 282–297.
19. Moscovitch, M. (1992) Memory and working with memory: A component process model based on modules and central systems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 4, 257 – 267.
20. Moscovitch, M. (1994) Memory and working with memory: Evaluation of a component process model and comparisons with other models. In DL Schacter and E Tulving (Eds) Memory Systems. MIT Bradford Press, Cambridge, 269 - 310.
21. Mukundan, C.R. Vaya SL (2004). Brain electrical activation fingerprinting, CBI Bulletin, 12 (10) 29 – 37. 22. Mukundan, C.R. (2005) Brain electrical oscillations signature profiling for forensic Applications. Paper presented in the 17th Meeting of International Association of Forensic Sciences, Hongkong, August 21-26, 2005.
