Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

• Ganis et al. (2003) examined the differences between truthful responses
and memorized lies that fit into a plausible but fictitious autobiographical
story, and spontaneous lies that were not part of a coherent story. Subjects
responded to visually presented questions using button presses or verbal
responses, received auditory cues instructing them whether or not to lie,
and were told that a human judge would review their responses to try to
tell if they were lying.
• Kozel et al. (2004a) had the subjects visit a room that contained six
objects, of which two were resting on $50 bills. During the subsequent
testing, the subjects were instructed to report accurately the association
of one of the objects with the bill (subject’s choice), and to report that
the remaining bill had been located under a different object than in fact
was the case. The subjects were promised they could keep the bills if they
were able to fool a human research assistant as to the actual location of
the bills.
While each of the above studies reported the ability to distinguish deceptive
and truthful responses on the basis of the fMRI spatial images, there were also
significant differences among the results. This is hardly surprising, given the
differences between the study designs. Some of the key differences include
whether the subject can choose to lie or is told to do so, the stimulus and response
modalities, the subjects’ motivation and emotional involvement, the specific kind
of lie being probed, and the subject’s degree of involvement with a human judge
of deceit (the deceived or target individual described above).
Potential
As a device for detecting deception, fMRI has some significant disadvantages.
It is not portable; the typical fMRI facility usually consists of the fMRI device
itself (including a superconducting magnet weighing 20,000 lbs or so) located in
a magnetically shielded room, a separate control room, and an equipment room
filled with amplifiers, power supplies, computers, and data storage devices. These
facilities require a significant capital investment. The noise level during scanning
is uncomfortably high (necessitating protective ear coverings), and even relatively
minor head motion during the scan can spoil the results. Such movements could
be effective countermeasures for resistant subjects. There are also some safety
hazards associated with MRI. Some injuries, including at least one fatality, have
occurred when metallic objects were brought into the scanning room (against
established safety policies) and were hurled by the intense magnetic field into the
magnet’s bore (where the unfortunate subject was located). Because the magnetic
field can also dislodge surgically implanted ferromagnetic materials, such as
pins or aneurysm clips, not everyone can be safely scanned by MRI. In addition,
pregnant women and people with claustrophobia are generally not scanned for
research purposes (Huettel, Song, and McCarthy, 2004).
Some researchers are attempting to commercialize the results of early
neuroscience-based research efforts. Farwell formed the firm Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories to promote his EEG-based technique following the termination of
79