Replication of Functional MRI Detection of Deception.

F Andrew Kozel, Steven J Laken, Kevin A Johnson, Bryant Boren, Kimberly S Mapes, Paul S Morgan, Mark S George
{"title":"Replication of Functional MRI Detection of Deception.","authors":"F Andrew Kozel,&nbsp;Steven J Laken,&nbsp;Kevin A Johnson,&nbsp;Bryant Boren,&nbsp;Kimberly S Mapes,&nbsp;Paul S Morgan,&nbsp;Mark S George","doi":"10.2174/1874402800902010006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND: Several studies support the use of fMRI for detecting deception. There have been, however, no reported replications on different scanners or at different locations. In a previous study, deception was accurately detected in at least 90% of the participants in two independent cohorts. This study attempted to replicate those findings using a different scanner and location. METHODS: Healthy participants 18-50 years of age were recruited from the local community. After providing written informed consent, participants were screened to ensure that they were healthy, not taking any medications, and safe to have an MRI. For the testing paradigm, subjects chose one of two objects (ring or watch) to \"steal\" and placed it in their locker. Participants were then scanned while being visually presented with a series of questions. Functional MRI analysis was performed in the same manner as described in Kozel et al. 2005. A Chi-Squared test was used to test for a significant difference between the results in the previous study and in this replication study. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (20 women, mean age 29.0+/-6.5 years) were scanned with one subject being noncompliant with the protocol. Twenty-five of twenty-nine (86%) participants were correctly identified when being deceptive. There was no statistical difference between the accuracy rate obtained in this study (25/29) versus the previous study (28/31) (Chi-Squared, chi(2)=0.246, p=0.6197). CONCLUSIONS: Our methodology for detecting deception was successfully replicated at a different site suggesting that this methodology is robust and independent of both scanner and location.</p>","PeriodicalId":88327,"journal":{"name":"The open forensic science journal","volume":"2 ","pages":"6-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1874402800902010006","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open forensic science journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874402800902010006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several studies support the use of fMRI for detecting deception. There have been, however, no reported replications on different scanners or at different locations. In a previous study, deception was accurately detected in at least 90% of the participants in two independent cohorts. This study attempted to replicate those findings using a different scanner and location. METHODS: Healthy participants 18-50 years of age were recruited from the local community. After providing written informed consent, participants were screened to ensure that they were healthy, not taking any medications, and safe to have an MRI. For the testing paradigm, subjects chose one of two objects (ring or watch) to "steal" and placed it in their locker. Participants were then scanned while being visually presented with a series of questions. Functional MRI analysis was performed in the same manner as described in Kozel et al. 2005. A Chi-Squared test was used to test for a significant difference between the results in the previous study and in this replication study. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (20 women, mean age 29.0+/-6.5 years) were scanned with one subject being noncompliant with the protocol. Twenty-five of twenty-nine (86%) participants were correctly identified when being deceptive. There was no statistical difference between the accuracy rate obtained in this study (25/29) versus the previous study (28/31) (Chi-Squared, chi(2)=0.246, p=0.6197). CONCLUSIONS: Our methodology for detecting deception was successfully replicated at a different site suggesting that this methodology is robust and independent of both scanner and location.

功能性核磁共振检测欺骗的复制。
背景:一些研究支持使用功能磁共振成像来检测欺骗。然而,在不同的扫描仪或不同的地点没有报告重复。在之前的一项研究中,在两个独立的队列中,至少90%的参与者被准确地检测到欺骗。这项研究试图使用不同的扫描仪和位置来复制这些发现。方法:从当地社区招募18-50岁的健康参与者。在提供书面知情同意后,对参与者进行筛选,以确保他们健康,不服用任何药物,并且可以安全地进行核磁共振成像。在测试范例中,受试者从两个物体(戒指或手表)中选择一个来“偷”,并把它放在储物柜里。然后,研究人员对参与者进行扫描,同时向他们提出一系列视觉问题。功能MRI分析与Kozel等人2005年描述的方法相同。使用卡方检验来检验先前研究结果与本重复研究结果之间是否存在显著差异。结果:30名受试者(20名女性,平均年龄29.0+/-6.5岁)被扫描,1名受试者不符合方案。29名参与者中有25人(86%)在撒谎时被正确识别。本研究的准确率(25/29)与前人研究的准确率(28/31)比较,差异无统计学意义(χ 2 =0.246, p=0.6197)。结论:我们的检测欺骗的方法在不同的地点成功复制,表明该方法是稳健的,独立于扫描仪和位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信