Recently, the ACR Daily News Scan ran an original article about using MRI as a tool for truth detection.
We are accustomed to using MRI as a screening tool for diagnosing and treating disease — serving as the next-generation polygraph seems a bit far fetched. Or is it?
fMRI truth-testing analyzes blood flow and oxygen changes in the brain, whereas the polygraph focuses on the human stress-response. And, the polygraph is arguably only about 65 percent accurate. One San Diego, Calif.-based firm is currently conducting a large trial set for completion next year, which hopes to achieve upwards of 90 percent accuracy in determining who is telling the truth.
The ACR has not taken a formal position on fMRI for truth detection, nor whether it represents an appropriate use of a diagnostic study for medical-legal purposes. I urge you to read the article in its entirety, as it discusses the medical and legal implications, as well as the opportunities for fMRI use in pre-employment screenings and the criminal justice system.
How do you feel about MRI being used as truth screenings?
Do you think this technology could have real implications on our judicial system?
I look forward to your thoughts.
I have been involved in fMRI research for many years. I continue to serve as a rewiever in this subject for multiple journals. I also provide services for clinical fMRI routinely. Since fMRI results may be false positive as well as false negative with any available software, I personally perform data processing for clinical cases even though it is time-consuming. Based on my research and clinical experience, I strongly believe that fMRI cannot be utilized for truth screening with the current state of technology.
Results of controlled experiments, as scientifically valid as they are, may not always be applicable to specific situations considering the individual variations seen with fMRI studies.
Posted by: Zerrin Yetkin | October 15, 2008 at 05:50 PM