↓ Skip to main content

Prospects of functional magnetic resonance imaging as lie detector

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
35 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prospects of functional magnetic resonance imaging as lie detector
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00594
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Rusconi, Timothy Mitchener-Nissen

Abstract

Following the demise of the polygraph, supporters of assisted scientific lie detection tools have enthusiastically appropriated neuroimaging technologies "as the savior of scientifically verifiable lie detection in the courtroom" (Gerard, 2008: 5). These proponents believe the future impact of neuroscience "will be inevitable, dramatic, and will fundamentally alter the way the law does business" (Erickson, 2010: 29); however, such enthusiasm may prove premature. For in nearly every article published by independent researchers in peer reviewed journals, the respective authors acknowledge that fMRI research, processes, and technology are insufficiently developed and understood for gatekeepers to even consider introducing these neuroimaging measures into criminal courts as they stand today for the purpose of determining the veracity of statements made. Regardless of how favorable their analyses of fMRI or its future potential, they all acknowledge the presence of issues yet to be resolved. Even assuming a future where these issues are resolved and an appropriate fMRI lie-detection process is developed, its integration into criminal trials is not assured for the very success of such a future system may necessitate its exclusion from courtrooms on the basis of existing legal and ethical prohibitions. In this piece, aimed for a multidisciplinary readership, we seek to highlight and bring together the multitude of hurdles which would need to be successfully overcome before fMRI can (if ever) be a viable applied lie detection system. We argue that the current status of fMRI studies on lie detection meets neither basic legal nor scientific standards. We identify four general classes of hurdles (scientific, legal and ethical, operational, and social) and provide an overview on the stages and operations involved in fMRI studies, as well as the difficulties of translating these laboratory protocols into a practical criminal justice environment. It is our overall conclusion that fMRI is unlikely to constitute a viable lie detector for criminal courts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 119 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 22%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 13 10%
Professor 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 15 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 25%
Neuroscience 13 10%
Engineering 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 24 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2024.
All research outputs
#320,710
of 25,503,365 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#147
of 7,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,122
of 289,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#23
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,503,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.