Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 222-234

  Langleben, Daniel D ^a   Moriarty, Jane Campbell ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain; Deception; Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Lie detection; Neuroscience

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883502457     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0028841     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Abe, N., Fujii, T., Hirayama, K., Takeda, A., Hosokai, Y., Ishioka, T.,.. Mori, E. (2009). Do parkinsonian patients have trouble telling lies? The neurobiological basis of deceptive behaviour. Brain, 132, 1386-1395. doi:10.1093/brain/awp052
2. Aguirre, G. K., & D'Esposito, M. (1999). Experimental design for brain fMRI. In C. T. W. Moonen & P. A. Bandettini (Eds.), Functional MRI (pp. 369-380). New York, NY: Springer.
3. Baldessarini, R. J., Finklestein, S., & Arana, G. W. (1983). The predictive power of diagnostic tests and the effect of prevalence of illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 569-573. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790050095011
4. Barnum, A. (2009, March 11). Dugan asks to drop appeal in Nicarico case. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-11/news/ct-met-dugan-appeal-0312-20110311_1_brian-duganjeanine- nicarico-nicarico-family
5. Barnum, A., & St. Clair, S. (2009, December). Dugan juror who switched at last minute stands by death sentence. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-03/news/0912020807_1_deathsentence- two-jurors-death-penalty
6. Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). Clinical judgment and decision-making in CQTpolygraphy. A comparison with other pseudoscientific applications in psychology. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 26, 232-240. doi:10.1007/BF02912515
7. Ben-Shakhar, G. (2001). A critical review of the Controlled Question Test (CQT). In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 103-127). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527-541. doi:10.1023/A:1020204005730
9. Berger, H. (1929). Über das Elektroenkephalogramm des Menschen. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 87, 527-570. doi:10.1007/BF01797193
10. Bizzi, E., Hyman, S., Raichle, M., Kanwisher, N., Phelps, E., Morse, S.,.. Greely, H. T. (2009). Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
11. Canli, T., Brandon, S., Casebeer, W., Crowley, P. J., Du Rousseau, D., Greely, H. T., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2007). Neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 3-13. doi:10.1080/15265160701290249
12. Crewson, P. E. (2001). Comparative analysis of polygraph with other screening and diagnostic tools (Report No. DODPI00P0030). Ashburn, VA: Research Support Service.
13. Cutler, B. L., & Wells, G. L. (2009). Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy. In J. L. Skeem & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification (pp. 100-123). New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.001.0001
14. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
15. Davatzikos, C., Ruparel, K., Fan, Y., Shen, D. G., Acharyya, M., Loughead, J. W.,.. Langleben, D. D. (2005). Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection. NeuroImage, 28, 663-668. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.009
16. Dedman, B. (2008). New anti-terror weapon: Hand-held lie detector. U.S. troops in Afghanistan first to get new device; 'red' means you're lying. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23926278
17. Donaldson, D. I., & Buckner, R. L. (2001). Effective paradigm design. In M. P. M. Matthews, P. Jezzard, & A. C. Evans (Eds.), Functional MRI: An introduction to methods (pp. 176-195). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?. American Psychologist, 46, 913-920. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913
19. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2010). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (§§ 40.1, 17:10). Eagan, MN: Thomson West.
20. Fisher, G. (1997). The jury's rise as lie detector. Yale Law Journal, 107, 575-713. doi:10.2307/797252
21. Fox, D. (2009). The right to silence as protecting mental control. Akron Law Review, 42, 763-801.
22. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923).
23. Fullam, R. S., McKie, S., & Dolan, M. C. (2009). Psychopathic traits and deception: Functional magnetic resonance imaging study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 194, 229-235. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.053199
24. Gallini, B. R. (2010). Police science in the interrogation room: Seventy years of pseudo-psychological interrogation methods to obtain inadmissible confessions. Hastings Law Journal, 61, 529-580.
25. Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S. M., Stose, S., Thompson, W. L., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2003). Neural correlates of different types of deception: An FMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 830-836. doi:10.1093/cercor/13.8.830
26. Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the scanner: Covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage, 55, 312-319. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.025
27. Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful conviction. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1-76.
28. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2008). The law and neuroscience. Neuron, 60, 412-415. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.022
29. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997).
30. Gjedde, A. (2001). Brain energy metabolism and the physiological basis of the haemodynamic response. In P. Jezzard, P. M. Matthews, & S. Smith (Eds.), Functional MRI: An introduction to methods (pp. 37-66). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Greely, H. T. (2006). The social effects of advances in neuroscience: Legal problems, legal perspective. In J. Illes (Ed.), Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice and policy (pp. 245-263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32. Greely, H. T.,& Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 377-431.
33. Greene, J. D., & Paxton, J. M. (2009). Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 12506-12511. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900152106
34. Griffin, L. (2009). Correcting injustice: How the United Kingdom and the United States review claims of innocence. Toledo Law Review, 41, 107-169.
35. Grubin, D. (2010). The polygraph and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 446-451.
36. Hakun, J. G., Ruparel, K., Seelig, D., Busch, E., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Langleben, D. D. (2009). Towards clinical trials of lie detection with fMRI. Social Neuroscience, 4, 518-527. doi:10.1080/17470910802188370
37. Halber, D. (2007, February 14). Scientists swear a good lie detector is hard to find. TechTalk, 51(17), 7. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/techtalk51-17.pdf
38. Halliburton, C. (2009). How privacy killed Katz: A tale of cognitive freedom and the property of personhood as fourth amendment norm. Akron Law Review, 42, 803-884.
39. Happel, M. D. (2005). Neuroscience and the detection of deception. Review of Policy Research, 22, 667-685. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00166.x Harrington v. State, 659 N. W. 2d 509 (Iowa 2003).
40. Henig, R. M. (2006, February 5). The new science of lying. Brain mapping, E.R.P. waves and microexpression readings could make deception harder. But would that make us better?. New York Times Magazine, 47.
41. Hickman, W. (2005). Senate approves $100 million for South Carolina defense projects. Retrieved from http://lgraham.senate.gov/public
42. Hughes, V. (2010). Science in court: Head case. Nature, 464, 340-342. doi:10.1038/464340a
43. Hyman, S. E. (2010). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Where are we now?. An appraisal of Wolpe, Foster and Langleben's "Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promise and perils" five years later. American Journal of Bioethics, 10, 49-50. doi:10.1080/15265161.2010.527263
44. Imwinkelried, E. J. (2011). Serendipitous timing: The coincidental emergence of the new brain science and the advent of an epistemological approach to determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Mercer Law Review, 62, 959-987.
45. Kanwisher, N. (2009). The use of fMRI in lie detection: What has been shown and what has not. In E. Bizzi, S. Hyman, M. Raichle, N. Kanwisher, E. Phelps, S. Morse,.. H. T. (Eds.), Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions (pp. 7-13). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
46. Kaye, D. H., Bernstein, D. E., & Mnookin, J. L. (2012). §2.4 Expert testimony on credibility: General rule. In The new Wigmore: A treatise on evidence - Expert evidence (2nd. ed., pp. 1-4). Frederick, MD; Aspen Publishers.
47. Kaylor-Hughes, C. J., Lankappa, S. T., Fung, R., Hope-Urwin, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., & Spence, S. A. (2011). The functional anatomical distinction between truth telling and deception is preserved among people with schizophrenia. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 8-20. doi:10.1002/cbm.785
48. Kozel, F. A., Johnson, K. A., Grenesko, E. L., Laken, S. J., Kose, S., Lu, X.,.. George, M. S. (2009). Functional MRI detection of deception after committing a mock sabotage crime. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 220-231. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00927.x
49. Kozel, F. A., Johnson, K. A., Mu, Q., Grenesko, E. L., Laken, S. J., & George, M. S. (2005). Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 605-613. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.07.040
50. Kozel, F. A., & Trivedi, M. H. (2008). Developing a neuropsychiatric functional brain imaging test. Neurocase, 14, 54-58. doi:10.1080/13554790701881731
51. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999).
52. Kwong, K. K., Belliveau, J. W., Chesler, D. A., Goldberg, I. E., Weisskoff, R. M., Poncelet, B. P.,.. Turner, R. (1992). Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89, 5675-5679. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.12.5675
53. Langleben, D. D. (2008). Detection of deception with fMRI: Are we there yet?. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 1-9. doi:10.1348/135532507X251641
54. Langleben, D. D., Loughead, J. W., Bilker, W. B., Ruparel, K., Childress, A. R., Busch, S. I., & Gur, R. C. (2005). Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 26, 262-272. doi:10.1002/hbm.20191
55. Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A., Gur, R. C., McDonald, S., Ragland, J. D.,.. Childress, A. R. (2002). Brain activity during simulated deception: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage, 15, 727-732. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.1003
56. Langleben, D. D., Willard, D., Moriarty, J. C. (2012). Detecting deception. In J. R. Simpson (Ed.), Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom (pp. 217-236). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
57. Lauterbur, P. C. (1973). Image formation by induced local interactions: Examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature, 242, 190-191. doi:10.1038/242190a0
58. Lee, T. M., Liu, H. L., Tan, L. H., Chan, C. C., Mahankali, S., Feng, C. M.,.. Gao, J. H. (2002). Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 157-164. doi:10.1002/hbm.10020
59. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
60. Lykken, D. T. (1991). Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 26, 214-222. doi:10.1007/BF02912513
61. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352.
62. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 281 (1987).
63. McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990).
64. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professional and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
65. Mildner, T., Zysset, S., Trampel, R., Driesel, W., & Moller, H. E. (2005). Towards quantification of blood-flow changes during cognitive task activation using perfusion-based fMRI. NeuroImage, 27, 919-926. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.040
66. Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Investigating deceptive communication. In Deceptive communication (Vol. 14, pp. 32-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
67. Monahan, J., Walker, L., & Mitchell, G. (2008). Contextual evidence of gender discrimination: The ascendance of "social frameworks." Virginia Law Review, 94, 1715-1748.
68. Moriarty, J. C. (2008). Flickering admissibility: Neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 29-49. doi: 10.1002/bsl.795
69. Moriarty, J. C. (2009). Visions of deception: Neuroimages and the search for truth. Akron Law Review, 42, 739-762.
70. Moriarty, J. C. (2010). Will history be servitude?. The NAS Report on forensic science and the role of the judiciary. Utah Law Review, 2010, 299-326.
71. Myers, J. E. B. (2010). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse litigation: Consensus and confusion. University of California Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 14, 1-57.
72. Nakayama, M. (2001). Practical of the concealed information test for criminal investigations in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 49-86). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
73. Nance, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2002). An empirical assessment of presentation formats with a relatively large and quantifiable random match probability. Jurimetics Journal, 42, 403-445.
74. Nance, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2005). Juror understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 395-444. doi:10.1086/428020
75. National Research Council of the National Academies. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.
76. Nicolas, P. (2004). De novo review in deferential robes?: A deconstruction of the standard of review of evidentiary errors in the federal system. Syracuse Law Review, 54, 531-533.
77. Nuñez, J. M., Casey, B. J., Egner, T., Hare, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control. NeuroImage, 25, 267-277. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.041
78. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990). The use of integrity tests for pre-employment screening (No. Report No. OTA-SET-442). Washington, DC: Author.
79. Oullier, O. (2012). Clear up this fuzzy thinking on brain scans. Nature, 483, 7. doi:10.1038/483007a
80. Owen, A. M., Epstein, R., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2001). fMRI: Applicationsin cognitive neuroscience. In P. Jezzard, P. M. Matthews, & S. Smith (Eds.), Functional MRI: An introduction to methods (pp. 311-327). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
81. Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience evidence, legal culture, and criminal procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33, 301-335.
82. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 317 (1989).
83. Pettus v. United States, _A. 3d._, 2012 WL 399997 (D. C. 2012).
84. Phelps, E. A. (2009). Lying outside the laboratory: The impact of imagery and emotion on the neural circuitry of lie detection. In E. Bizzi, S. Hyman, M. Raichle, N. Kanwisher, E. Phelps, S. Morse,.. H. T. (Eds.), Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions (pp. 14-22). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
85. Poulin, A. B. (2007). Credibility: A fair subject for expert testimony?. Florida Law Review, 59, 991-1069.
86. Raichle, M. E. (2009). An introduction to functional brain imaging in the context of lie dtection. In E. Bizzi, S. Hyman, M. Raichle, N. Kanwisher, E. Phelps, S. Morse,.. H. T. (Eds.), Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions (pp. 3-6). Cambridge, MA:American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
87. Rakoff, J. S. (2009). Lie detection in the courts: The vain search for the magic bullet. In E. Bizzi, S. Hyman, M. Raichle, N. Kanwisher, E. Phelps, S. Morse,.. H. T. (Eds.), Using imaging to identify deceit: Scientific and ethical questions (pp. 40-45). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
88. Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2001). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 14-15). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
89. Risinger, D. M. (2000). Defining the "task at hand": Non-science forensic science after Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Washington & Lee Law Review, 57, 767-800.
90. Rosenfeld, J. P. (2005). "Brain fingerprinting": A critical analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4(1), 20-37.
91. Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, B., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., & Mazzeri, L. (1988). A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience, 42, 157-161. doi:10.3109/00207458808985770
92. Rushing, S. E., Pryma, D. A., & Langleben, D. D. (2012). PET and SPECT. In J. R. Simpson (Ed.), Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom (pp. 3-25). Chichester, England: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119968900.ch1
93. Schauer, F. (2010a). Can bad science be good evidence?. Cornell Law Review, 95, 1191-1220.
94. Schauer, F. (2010b). Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law: Contrary to the prevailing view, the suitability of brain-based lie-detection for courtroom or forensic use should be determined according to legal and not scientific standards. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 101-103. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.004
95. Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., Roskies, A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gaudet, L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 357-393. doi:10.1037/a0023581
96. Seaman, J. A. (2008). Black boxes. Emory Law Journal, 58, 427-488.
97. Shen, F. X., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Brain Scans as evidence: Truths, proofs, lies, and lessons. Mercer L. Rev., 62, 861.
98. Simpson, J. R. (2008). Functional MRI lie detection: Too good to be true?. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 491-498.
99. Smith v. Spisak, 130 S. Ct. 676, 175 L. Ed. 2d 595 (2010).
100. Spence, S. A. (2008). Playing devil's advocate: The case against fMRI lie detection. [Editorial]. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 11-25. doi:10.1348/135532507X251597
101. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 2849-2853. doi:10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019
102. Spence, S. A., Hope-Urwin, A., Lankappa, S. T., Woodhead, J., Burgess, J. C. L., & Mackay, A. V. (2010). If brain scans really detected deception, who would volunteer to be scanned?. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1352-1355. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01452.x
103. Spence, S. A., & Kaylor-Hughes, C. J. (2008). Looking for truth and finding lies: The prospects for a nascent neuroimaging of deception. Neurocase, 14, 68-81. doi:10.1080/13554790801992776
104. Spence, S. A., Kaylor-Hughes, C. J., Brook, M. L., Lankappa, S. T., & Wilkinson, I. D. (2008). 'Munchausen's syndrome by proxy' or a 'miscarriage of justice'?. An initial application of functional neuroimaging to the question of guilt versus innocence. European Psychiatry, 23, 309-314. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.09.001
105. Stern, P. C. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Report of the National Research Council Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
106. Talbot, M. (2007, July 2). Duped: Can brain scans uncover lies?. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/02/070702fa_fact_talbot
107. The Law and Neuroscience Project (2010). Retrieved from http://www.lawneuro.org
108. Thompson, S. K. (2005). The legality of the use of psychiatric neuroimaging in intelligence interrogation. Cornell Law Review, 90, 1601-1637.
109. Tovino, S. A. (2007). Imaging body structure and mapping brain function: A historical approach. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 193-228.
110. United States v. Charley, 189 F. 3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999).
111. United States v. Fulks, 454 F. 3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006).
112. United States v. Love, F. 3d, 2011 WL 2173644 (S. D. Cal.).
113. United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F. 3d 980 (2d Cir. 1999).
114. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).
115. United States v. Semrau, 07-10074 ML/P, 2010 WL 6845092 (W. D. Tenn. June 1, 2010).
116. United States v. Semrau, 2011 WL 3881885 (corrected appeal brief filed in the Sixth Circuit).
117. United States v. Sherlin, 67 F. 3d 1208 (6th Cir. 1995).
118. United States v. Smith, 405 Fed. App'x 795 (4th Cir. 2010).
119. United States v. Swayze, 378 F. 3d 834, 837 (8th Cir. 2004).
120. U.S. Senate. (1994). An assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames espionage case and its implications for U.S. intelligence (No. ISBN-10 0160460972). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
121. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.
122. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559-598. doi:10.2307/1072923
123. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470-477. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20040
124. Wilson v. CorestaffServices, L. P., 900 N. Y. S. 2d 639 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).
125. Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R., & Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 39-49. doi:10.1080/15265160590923367
126. Yang, Y., Raine, A., Narr, K. L., Lencz, T., LaCasse, L., Colletti, P., & Toga, A. W. (2007). Localisation of increased prefrontal white matter in pathological liars. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 174-175. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.025056