190 likes | 740 Views
Organization. Theoretical Research with ERPsfMRI in 5 secondsCurrent Deception Research with fMRITechniques combining multiple methods. . . . . . . . . . Amplifier Buzz. High Impendence. Scalp, Skull. Muscle. . Random Brain Activity. Aspects of deception in the ERP. 0 250 500 750ms.
E N D
2. Organization Theoretical Research with ERPs
fMRI in 5 seconds
Current Deception Research with fMRI
Techniques combining multiple methods
4. Aspects of deception in the ERP
5. ERPs: The Signal-Noise Approach Signal: Brain wave associated with deception
Several potential waveforms are studied
The most consistent is the P300 evoked in an oddball paradigm with concealed information
Noise: Every other signal generated by the human brain
6. The Signal-Noise Approach has Historically Proven Inadequate for BOTH Polygraph and ERPs Reliability Both measures deliver consistent results across repeated tests
Validity But NEITHER measure has been experimentally validated
They measure something, but not necessarily deception
7. Functional MRI This technique allows us to watch the human brain in action.
8. Functional MRI
An MRI scanner can detect the magnetic change as blood flow increases in certain parts of the brain.
We can use this to determine which parts of the brain are most active.
9. Functional MRI Example: ask a person to move their eyes
10. Activated Parts of the Brain
11. Current Research in fMRI: Regions of Activation sited in Bhaat et al (in press)
12. Individual Trials fMRI studies
13. 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
15. Incidental Measurement Differences
16. 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
17. Deception is a complicated socio-dynamic cognitive process It is possible that deception is not the result of a unique structure or system within the human brain
Rather it is the result of several sub-processes that are also recruited during other socio-dynamic cognitive processes (like lecturing)
18. 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
19. Conclusions These technologies are not ready for practical application
The issues that limit the utility of ERP and fMRI have nothing to do with the equipment
The major problems all revolve around the supporting science
The science is currently in its infancy, and has thus far had a troubled development