Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Nov 29;359(1451):1755–1762. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1555

A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging.

Sean A Spence 1, Mike D Hunter 1, Tom F D Farrow 1, Russell D Green 1, David H Leung 1, Catherine J Hughes 1, Venkatasubramanian Ganesan 1
PMCID: PMC1693447  PMID: 15590616

Abstract

An organism may use misinformation, knowingly (through deception) or unknowingly (as in the case of camouflage), to gain advantage in a competitive environment. From an evolutionary perspective, greater tactical deception occurs among primates closer to humans, with larger neocortices. In humans, the onset of deceptive behaviours in childhood exhibits a developmental trajectory, which may be regarded as 'normal' in the majority and deficient among a minority with certain neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. autism). In the human adult, deception and lying exhibit features consistent with their use of 'higher' or 'executive' brain systems. Accurate detection of deception in humans may be of particular importance in forensic practice, while an understanding of its cognitive neurobiology may have implications for models of 'theory of mind' and social cognition, and societal notions of responsibility, guilt and mitigation. In recent years, functional neuroimaging techniques (especially functional magnetic resonance imaging) have been used to study deception. Though few in number, and using very different experimental protocols, studies published in the peer-reviewed literature exhibit certain consistencies. Attempted deception is associated with activation of executive brain regions (particularly prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices), while truthful responding has not been shown to be associated with any areas of increased activation (relative to deception). Hence, truthful responding may comprise a relative 'baseline' in human cognition and communication. The subject who lies may necessarily engage 'higher' brain centres, consistent with a purpose or intention (to deceive). While the principle of executive control during deception remains plausible, its precise anatomy awaits elucidation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (479.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baddeley A. D. The capacity for generating information by randomization. Q J Exp Psychol. 1966 May;18(2):119–129. doi: 10.1080/14640746608400019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Badgaiyan R. D. Executive control, willed actions, and nonconscious processing. Hum Brain Mapp. 2000;9(1):38–41. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(2000)9:1<38::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-T. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Butters N., Butter C., Rosen J., Stein D. Behavioral effects of sequential and one-stage ablations of orbital prefrontal cortex in the monkey. Exp Neurol. 1973 Mar-Apr;39(2):204–214. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(73)90223-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Farrow Tom F. D., Reilly Rebecca, Rahman Towhida A., Herford Amy E., Woodruff Peter W. R., Spence Sean A. Sex and personality traits influence the difference between time taken to tell the truth or lie. Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Oct;97(2):451–460. doi: 10.2466/pms.2003.97.2.451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Farwell L. A., Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology. 1991 Sep;28(5):531–547. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fletcher P. C., Happé F., Frith U., Baker S. C., Dolan R. J., Frackowiak R. S., Frith C. D. Other minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of "theory of mind" in story comprehension. Cognition. 1995 Nov;57(2):109–128. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00692-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford C. V., King B. H., Hollender M. H. Lies and liars: psychiatric aspects of prevarication. Am J Psychiatry. 1988 May;145(5):554–562. doi: 10.1176/ajp.145.5.554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frith C. D., Friston K., Liddle P. F., Frackowiak R. S. Willed action and the prefrontal cortex in man: a study with PET. Proc Biol Sci. 1991 Jun 22;244(1311):241–246. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1991.0077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gallagher Helen L., Frith Christopher D. Functional imaging of 'theory of mind'. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):77–83. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00025-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ganis G., Kosslyn S. M., Stose S., Thompson W. L., Yurgelun-Todd D. A. Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex. 2003 Aug;13(8):830–836. doi: 10.1093/cercor/13.8.830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Iversen S. D., Mishkin M. Perseverative interference in monkeys following selective lesions of the inferior prefrontal convexity. Exp Brain Res. 1970 Nov 26;11(4):376–386. doi: 10.1007/BF00237911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jack A. I., Shallice T. Introspective physicalism as an approach to the science of consciousness. Cognition. 2001 Apr;79(1-2):161–196. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00128-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Langleben D. D., Schroeder L., Maldjian J. A., Gur R. C., McDonald S., Ragland J. D., O'Brien C. P., Childress A. R. Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage. 2002 Mar;15(3):727–732. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee Tatia M. C., Liu Ho-Ling, Tan Li-Hai, Chan Chetwyn C. H., Mahankali Srikanth, Feng Ching-Mei, Hou Jinwen, Fox Peter T., Gao Jia-Hong. Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002 Mar;15(3):157–164. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Passingham R. E. Attention to action. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996 Oct 29;351(1346):1473–1479. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1996.0132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Seymour T. L., Seifert C. M., Shafto M. G., Mosmann A. L. Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge". J Appl Psychol. 2000 Feb;85(1):30–37. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sodian B., Frith U. Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Mar;33(3):591–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00893.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Spence S. A., Farrow T. F., Herford A. E., Wilkinson I. D., Zheng Y., Woodruff P. W. Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport. 2001 Sep 17;12(13):2849–2853. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Spence S. A., Hirsch S. R., Brooks D. J., Grasby P. M. Prefrontal cortex activity in people with schizophrenia and control subjects. Evidence from positron emission tomography for remission of 'hypofrontality' with recovery from acute schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 1998 Apr;172:316–323. doi: 10.1192/bjp.172.4.316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Starkstein S. E., Robinson R. G. Mechanism of disinhibition after brain lesions. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1997 Feb;185(2):108–114. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199702000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Tyrer P., Babidge N., Emmanuel J., Yarger N., Ranger M. Instrumental psychosis: the Good Soldier Svejk syndrome. J R Soc Med. 2001 Jan;94(1):22–25. doi: 10.1177/014107680109400106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES