Making sense of research on the neuroimage bias

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 251-258

  Baker, D A ^a   Ware, Jillian M ^a   Schweitzer, N J ^a   Risko, Evan F ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

governance of science and technology; interaction experts publics; lay expertise; public understanding of science; representations of science; science attitudes and perceptions; science communication; scientific controversies

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; NEUROIMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION;

BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; NEUROIMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 85011802433     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515604975     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Baker DA, Schweitzer NJ, Risko EF, Ware JM, (2013) Visual attention and the neuroimage bias. PLoS ONE 8(9): e74449. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074449.
2. Batts S, (2009) Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 27(2): 261–272. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.857.
3. Beaulieu A, (2002) Images are not the (only) truth: Brain mapping, visual knowledge, and iconoclasm. Science, Technology & Human Values 27(1): 53–86.
4. Brown T, Murphy E, (2010) Through a scanner darkly: Functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states. Stanford Law Review 62(4): 1119–1208.
5. Compton ES, (2010) Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: The need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 12(2): 333–354.
6. Davis K, (2012) Brain trials: Neuroscience is taking a stand in the courtroom. ABA Journal, 1 November. Available at: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/brain_trials_neuroscience_is_taking_a_stand_in_the_courtroom/
7. Dumit J, (1999) Objective brains, prejudicial images. Science in Context 12(1): 173–201. DOI: 10.1017/S0269889700003355.
8. Farah MJ, Hook CJ, (2013) The seductive allure of “seductive allure.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(1): 88–90. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612469035.
9. Feigenson N, (2006) Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: On the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context 2(3): 233–255. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174455230600303X
10. Fernandez-Duque D, Evans J, Christian C, Hodges SD, (2015) Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27(5): 926–944. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00750.
11. Gibbons MG, (2007) Seeing the mind in the matter: Functional brain imaging as framed visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 173–188.
12. Greene E, Cahill BS, (2012) Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 30(3): 280–296. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.
13. Gruber D, Dickerson JA, (2012) Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science 21(8): 938–948. DOI: 10.1177/0963662512454072.
14. Gurley JR, Marcus DK, (2008) The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 26(1): 85–97. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.797.
15. Hook CJ, Farah MJ, (2013) Look again: Effects of brain images and mind-brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25(9): 1397–1405. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00407.
16. Ikeda K, Kitagami S, Takahashi T, Hattori Y, Ito Y, (2013) Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: The effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(6): 1357–1363. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0457-5.
17. Joyce K, (2005) Appealing images: Magnetic resonance imaging and the production of authoritative knowledge. Social Studies of Science 35(3): 437–462.
18. Koebler J, (2012) Criminal minds: Use of neuroscience as a defense skyrockets. U.S. News &World Report, 9 November. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/09/criminal-minds-use-of-neuroscience-as-a-defense-skyrockets
19. Kulynych J, (1997) Psychiatric neuroimaging evidence: A high-tech crystal ball? Stanford Law Review 49(5): 1249–1270.
20. Linden A, Fenn J, (2003) Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic Analysis Report no. R-20-1971. New York, NY: Gartner, Inc.
21. Lombrozo T, (2007) Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology 55(3): 232–257.
22. McCabe DP, Castel AD, (2008) Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107(1): 343–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.
23. McCabe DP, Castel AD, Rhodes MG, (2011) The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 29(4): 566–577. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.993.
24. Messaris P, (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25. Michael RB, Newman EJ, Vuorre M, Cumming G, Garry M, (2013) Of the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(4): 720–725. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6.
26. Pratt B, (2005) “Soft” science in the courtroom? The effects of admitting neuroimaging evidence into legal proceedings. Penn Bioethics Journal 1(1): 1–3.
27. Reeves D, Mills MJ, Billick SB, Brodie JD, (2003) Limitations of brain imaging in forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31(1): 89–96.
28. Roskies AL, (2008) Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics 1(1): 19–30.
29. Saks MJ, Schweitzer NJ, Aharoni E, Kiehl KA, (2014) The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11(1): 105–131. DOI: 10.1111/jels.12036.
30. Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ, (2011) Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 29(4): 592–607. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.995.
31. Schweitzer NJ, Baker DA, Risko EF, (2013) Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition 129(3): 501–511. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.009
32. Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ, Murphy ER, Roskies AL, Sinott-Armstrong W, Gaudet LM, (2011) Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(3): 357–393. DOI: 10.1037/a0023581.
33. Tversky A, Kahneman D, (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.
34. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray JR, (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(3): 470–477. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040.