FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125539314> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125539314 endingPage "8" @default.
• W3125539314 startingPage "7" @default.
• W3125539314 abstract "Deception is an all-too-common human activity, one that succeeds because we cannot always detect it in others. It complicates all sorts of human decision-making, including attributing guilt for criminal offenses. The law relies on human fact-finders to determine whether criminal defendants claiming innocence, as well as witnesses testifying about a case, are telling the truth. But the fallibility of human lie detection has fueled the search for a more accurate replacement. Scientists have developed new approaches to lie detection that use a brain scanning technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to evaluate whether someone is lying. In experimental settings, researchers have found that different parts of the brain are active when subjects are giving truthful or deceptive answers. The advantage of fMRI is that it can discern the blood flow changes that indicate changes in brain activity. The technique's developers claim that it is much more accurate than the polygraph, the old-fashioned lie detector that relies on increases in blood pressure, pulse rate, and other measures of autonomic arousal to indicate whether someone is telling a lie. Legal authorities have been skeptical of the polygraph's value, and courts usually exclude test results on grounds that the accuracy rates are too low. Enthusiasts hope that courts will be more receptive to fMRI lie detection techniques. But two recent court decisions suggest that these techniques are far from ready for courtroom use. Questions of Reliability and Probative Value In 2010, two judges issued opinions addressing the admissibility of testimony about fMRI lie detection test results. Both determined that the test results were inadmissible. The most extensive analysis comes from Tennessee Federal Magistrate Judge Tu Pham, who conducted a so-called Daubert hearing to determine whether test results should be admitted in the trial of Lorne Semrau, a psychologist charged with health care fraud. (1) Daubert hearings are conducted to determine whether scientific or other technical evidence meets the admissibility criteria set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (2) In Daubert, the Court said that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires trial judges to determine whether expert testimony is both reliable--supported by scientifically valid reasoning or methodology--and relevant--applicable to the specific issue the court must resolve. Judges making these determinations could consider: (1) whether the scientific technique is testable and whether it has been tested; (2) whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the technique's known or potential error rate; (4) whether there are standards governing the technique's application; and (5) whether the scientific community accepts the technique. The defendant in United States v. Semrau wanted to submit test results from an fMRI lie detection method developed by a company called Cephos. At the Daubert hearing, Magistrate Pham accepted testimony from three expert witnesses, including the chief executive officer of Cephos, a scientist who helped develop the Cephos lie detection method. The magistrate found that the Cephos test had been studied in laboratory experiments and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. But the technique fared less well when he turned to the remaining Daubert factors. Although the Cephos CEO testified that published studies reported an accuracy rate of about 90 percent for the test, another expert at the hearing said those studies were too small to provide valid data. More importantly, the studies were conducted in circumstances quite different from those present in an actual criminal case. Ironically, Magistrate Pham could turn to articles written by the CEO and members of the Cephos scientific advisory panel for a discussion of the differences. First, study subjects failed to represent the general population--none of the studies included subjects as old as the defendant, nor did they include people on medication or those with medical or psychiatric conditions. …" @default.
• W3125539314 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125539314 creator A5041996501 @default.
• W3125539314 date "2010-11-12" @default.
• W3125539314 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3125539314 title "Brain Imaging and Courtroom Deception" @default.
• W3125539314 cites W1987478192 @default.
• W3125539314 cites W2149098787 @default.
• W3125539314 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-146x.2010.tb00066.x" @default.
• W3125539314 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21155104" @default.
• W3125539314 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W3125539314 type Work @default.
• W3125539314 sameAs 3125539314 @default.
• W3125539314 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W3125539314 countsByYear W31255393142012 @default.
• W3125539314 countsByYear W31255393142013 @default.
• W3125539314 countsByYear W31255393142014 @default.
• W3125539314 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125539314 hasAuthorship W3125539314A5041996501 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C119421448 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C18296254 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C2776437466 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C2777359062 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C2779267917 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C37428701 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C111472728 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C11171543 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C119421448 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C119857082 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C126838900 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C138885662 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C15744967 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C169760540 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C17744445 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C18296254 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C199539241 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C26760741 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C2776291640 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C2776437466 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C2777359062 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C2779267917 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C37428701 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C41008148 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C71924100 @default.
• W3125539314 hasConceptScore W3125539314C77805123 @default.
• W3125539314 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W3125539314 hasLocation W31255393141 @default.
• W3125539314 hasLocation W31255393142 @default.
• W3125539314 hasOpenAccess W3125539314 @default.
• W3125539314 hasPrimaryLocation W31255393141 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W143873023 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1507882236 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1540311925 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1542423137 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1550051296 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1552140389 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W156134452 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1786441247 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W1840361189 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2045716381 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W204648780 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2079152579 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2272216441 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2273639408 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W259587296 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2601738724 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W781321961 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W82344559 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2602306968 @default.
• W3125539314 hasRelatedWork W2612430154 @default.
• W3125539314 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W3125539314 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125539314 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125539314 magId "3125539314" @default.
• W3125539314 workType "article" @default.