title: When Pinocchio's nose does not grow: belief regarding lie-detectability modulates production of deception.
abstract: Does the brain activity underlying the production of deception differ depending on whether or not one believes their deception can be detected? To address this question, we had participants commit a mock theft in a laboratory setting, and then interrogated them while they underwent functional MRI (fMRI) scanning. Crucially, during some parts of the interrogation participants believed a lie-detector was activated, whereas in other parts they were told it was switched-off. We were thus able to examine the neural activity associated with the contrast between producing true vs. false claims, as well as the independent contrast between believing that deception could and could not be detected. We found increased activation in the right amygdala and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), as well as the left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), during the production of false (compared to true) claims. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between the effects of deception and belief in the left temporal pole and right hippocampus/parahippocampal gyrus, where activity increased during the production of deception when participants believed their false claims could be detected, but not when they believed the lie-detector was switched-off. As these regions are associated with binding socially complex perceptual input and memory retrieval, we conclude that producing deceptive behavior in a context in which one believes this deception can be detected is associated with a cognitively taxing effort to reconcile contradictions between one's actions and recollections.
authors: Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus, Denmark ; Department of Aesthetics and Communication - Linguistics, Aarhus University Aarhus, Denmark ; Department of Psychology, Rutgers University - Newark NJ, USA.
authors: Kamila E
authors: KE
authors: Sip
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Carmel
authors: Jennifer L
authors: JL
authors: Marchant
authors: Jian
authors: J
authors: Li
authors: Predrag
authors: P
authors: Petrovic
authors: Andreas
authors: A
authors: Roepstorff
authors: William B
authors: WB
authors: McGregor
authors: Christopher D
authors: CD
authors: Frith
keywords: beliefs; deception; fMRI; lie-detection; mock-crime
references: Neuroimage. 2005 Mar;25(1):267-77
references: 15734361
references: Br J Psychol. 2001 May;92(Pt 2):373-89
references: 11417787
references: Evolution. 1989 Jan;43(1):223-225
references: 28568501
references: Neuron. 2005 Jun 16;46(6):957-69
references: 15953423
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 28;106(30):12506-11
references: 19622733
references: Neuroimage. 1995 Mar;2(1):45-53
references: 9343589
references: Science. 2006 Aug 4;313(5787):684-7
references: 16888142
references: J Soc Psychol. 1993 Oct;133(5):601-10
references: 8283858
references: Biol Psychol. 2010 Feb;83(2):101-7
references: 19931347
references: Neuroimage. 2006 Apr 1;30(2):601-8
references: 16257239
references: Psychiatry. 1969 Feb;32(1):88-106
references: 5779090
references: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2007 Jun;2(2):150-8
references: 18985131
references: Neuroreport. 2003 Jul 1;14(9):1215-9
references: 12824762
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Feb;19(2):287-95
references: 17280517
references: Mol Neurobiol. 2000 Aug-Dec;22(1-3):11-20
references: 11414274
references: Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):679-88
references: 16436822
references: Cereb Cortex. 2003 Aug;13(8):830-6
references: 12853369
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):787-99
references: 17403643
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:27-48, C1-8
references: 19958178
references: Neuron. 2009 Dec 10;64(5):756-70
references: 20005830
references: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Jun;7(5):506-15
references: 19258375
references: Neuroreport. 2001 Sep 17;12(13):2849-53
references: 11588589
references: Science. 2012 Oct 12;338(6104):270-3
references: 23066083
references: Neuropsychologia. 2010 Oct;48(12):3619-26
references: 20727906
references: J Neurosci. 2009 Oct 7;29(40):12574-83
references: 19812332
references: Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 1;29(1):90-8
references: 16122944
references: Am J Law Med. 2007;33(2-3):377-431
references: 17910165
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):170-7
references: 15050513
references: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006 Sep;1(2):95-106
references: 17339967
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):459-73
references: 12689373
references: Neuroimage. 2009 Oct 1;47(4):2005-15
references: 19501175
references: Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Dec;28(12):1287-301
references: 17290371
references: Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Oct 15;58(8):605-13
references: 16185668
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5497-502
references: 12682281
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Feb;12(2):48-53
references: 18178516
references: Neuron. 2002 Aug 15;35(4):625-41
references: 12194864
references: Physiol Behav. 2008 Jun 9;94(3):331-40
references: 18343464
references: Front Neurosci. 2012 Apr 18;6:58
references: 22529772
references: Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):968-80
references: 16530430
references: J Neurosci. 2002 Apr 1;22(7):2730-6
references: 11923438
references: Hum Brain Mapp. 2005 Dec;26(4):262-72
references: 16161128
references: Neuron. 2006 Feb 16;49(4):631-8
references: 16476670
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;14(2):198-202
references: 15082325
references: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003 Dec;9(4):261-9
references: 14664677
references: Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2009 Sep;34(3):177-87
references: 19536648
references: Neuroimage. 2008 Apr 15;40(3):1411-8
references: 18308586
references: Brain. 2007 Jul;130(Pt 7):1718-31
references: 17392317
references: Law Hum Behav. 2007 Oct;31(5):499-518
references: 17211691
references: J Appl Psychol. 2004 Dec;89(6):1099-105
references: 15584845
references: J Neurosci. 2004 Jun 16;24(24):5500-5
references: 15201322
references: J Forensic Sci. 2009 Jan;54(1):220-31
references: 19067772