Study of Neurocognitive Processes in a Paradigm of Information Concealment

The work contains a brief overview of the results of a series of experiments using the methods of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and simultaneous registration of vegetative reactions using MRI-compatible polygraph (MRIcP), reflects the next stage in the development of domestic applied — forensic — psychophysiology and states the formation of a new — neuro-forensic — direction of neurobiological research. The work announces the creation of a technology for complex fMRI-MRIcP neurocognitive researches, promising for use in the interests of fundamental science and for a number of branches of practice. Here are the results of testing the effectiveness of this technology of fMRI-MRIcP research, performed on students of a technical university (23 male participants aged 22-23 years old). The experiments used, borrowed from forensic practice, “test with a hidden name” and “test for knowing the guilty”, simulating the concealment of personally significant information (stored in a person’s memory for decades) and situation- ally significant information (entered into a person’s memory an hour before experiment). An analysis of galvanic skin reactions and reactions in photoplethysmogram was carried out using a system for quantitative assessment of physiological data recorded using MRIcP during the simultaneous registration of fMRI. The high consistency of expert scoring and automatic quantitative assessment of polygrams has been confirmed, and ways to improve the automatic evaluation of data have been identified. The usefulness of the application of the system for quantitative assessment of physiological data and the method of “specifying the sample” (carried out with the help of MRIcP) for studying the functional connectivity of the brain areas when hiding personally and situationally significant information in selected forensic tests is shown.

1. Aleksandrov Yu.I., M.Sams, Yu.Lavikainen, K.Reinikainen, Naatanen R. Zavisimost’ svoistv svyazannykh s sobytiyami potentsialov ot vozrasta elementov sub”ektivnogo opyta, aktualiziruemykh pri kategorizatsii slov rodnogo i inostrannogo yazykov. [Dependence of the properties of event-related potentials on the age of the elements of subjective experience, actualized when categorizing the words of the native and foreign languages]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal= Psychological journal. 1997. V.18. N1. P. 133—145
2. Aleksandrov Yu.I. Opasnost’ mezhdistsiplinarnykh   issledovanii   i   ee   preodolenie   [The   danger of interdisciplinary research and its overcoming]. Psikhologicheskoe znanie: vidy, istochniki, puti postroeniya=Psychological knowledge: types, sources, ways of building. Ed. A. L. Zhuravlev, A.V. Yurevich. Moscow, ‘Institute of Psychology RAS’, 2021, p. 159—198. DOI: 10.38098/thry_21_0434.
3. Aleksandrov Yu.I. Psikhofiziologicheskie zakonomernosti naucheniya i metody obucheniya [Psychophysiological laws of learning and teaching methods]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological journal, 2012. V. 33, № 6, pp. 5-19
4. Zakharova N.V., Koval’chuk M.V., Kostyuk G.P., Bravve   L.V.,   Kaidan   M.A.,   Kartashov   S.I., Malakhov D.G., Kholodnyi Yu.I. Vozmozhnosti prikladnogo ispol’zovaniya poligrafa dlya izucheniya negativnoi simptomatiki bol’nykh paranoidnoi shizofreniei [ Possibilities of the applied use of the polygraph to study the negative symptoms of patients with paranoid schizophrenia]. Psikhicheskoe zdorov’e= Mental health. 2019. № 12. pp. 50—60.
5. Kireev M.V. Sistemnaya organizatsiya raboty mozga pri obespechenii tselenapravlennogo povedeniya. Dissertatsiya [Systemic organization of the brain while providing purposeful behavior. Thesis] — St.- Petersburg, Saint Petersburg State University, 2017. 304 p.
6. Koval’chuk M.V., Noraikin O.S., Yatsishina E.B. Konvergentsiya nauk i tekhnologii — novyi etap nauchno-tekhnicheskogo razvitiya [Convergence of Science and Technology — a New Stage of Scientific and Technological Development]. Voprosy filosofii= Philosophy questions. 2013. № 3. p. 15.
7. Koval’chuk M.V., Yu.I. Kholodnyi, S.I. Kartashov, D.G. Malakhov, V.A. Orlov. Kompleksnoe primenenie fMRT i MRT-sovmestimogo poligrafa: novye vozmozhnosti pri provedenii issledovanii cheloveka [Complex application of fMRI and MRI-compatible polygraph: new opportunities in human research]. Vestnik Voennogo innovatsionnogo tekhnopolisa «ERA»=Bulletin of the Military Innovative Technopolis “ERA”.2020. V. 1. № 1. pp. 112—116.
8. Kremneva E.I., Konovalov R.N., Krotenkova M.V. Funktsional’naya magnitno-rezonansnaya tomografiya [Functional magnetic resonance imaging] Annaly klinicheskoi i eksperimental’noi nevrologii=Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology. 2011. V. 5, № 1, pp. 30—34.
9. Leont’ev K.A., Panin S.D. Otsenka poligramm, poluchennykh v khode kriminalisticheskogo issledovaniya s primeneniem poligrafa [Evaluation of polygrams obtained in the course of forensic research using a polygraph]. Yuridicheskaya psikhologiya= Legal psychology. 2014. № 2. pp. 33—37.
10. Luriya A.R. Sopryazhennaya motornaya metodika i ee primenenie v issledovanii affektivnykh reaktsii [Conjugated motor technique and its application in the study of affective reactions]. Psikhologicheskoe nasledie= Psychological legacy. Moscow.: Smysl, 2003. p. 52.
11. Kholodnyi Yu.I. Nekotorye maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii stanovleniya primeneniya poligrafa v Rossii [Some little-known pages in the history of the formation of the use of the polygraph in Russia]. Vestnik Akademii Sledstvennogo komiteta RF= Bulletin of the Academy of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. 2015. № 4. pp. 174—183.
12. Kholodnyi Yu.I., Savel’ev Yu.I. Problema ispol’zovaniya ispytanii na poligrafe: priglashenie k diskussii [The problem of using polygraph tests: an invitation to discussion]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal= Psychological journal. 1996. V. 17. №. 3. pp. 53—69.
13. Kholodnyi Yu.I. Primenenie poligrafa pri profilaktike, raskrytii i rassledovanii prestuplenii [The use of a polygraph in the prevention, detection and investigation of crimes]. Moscow. World of security, 2000. 157 p.
14. Kholodnyi Yu.I. Nekotorye teoreticheskie aspekty tekhnologii issledovanii s primeneniem poligrafa (stat’ya vtoraya) [Some theoretical aspects of research technology using a polygraph (second article)] Rassledovanie prestuplenii: problemy i puti ikh reshenii= Crime investigation: problems and solutions. 2021. № 2. pp. 147—152.
15. Shvyrkov V.B. Vvedenie v ob”ektivnuyu psikhologiyu. Neironal’nye osnovy psikhiki [Introduction to objective psychology. Neuronal fundamentals of the psyche].V. B. Shvyrkov. Selected Works Ed. Yu.I. Alexandrov. Moscow. Institute of Psychology RAS, 2006.
16. Alexandrov Yu.I., Grechenko T.N., Gavrilov V.V., Gorkin A.G., Shevchenko D.G., Grinchenko Yu.V., Aleksandrov I.O., Maksimova N.E, Bezdenezhnych B.N., Bodunov M.V. Formation and realization of individual experience: a psychophysiological approach. Conceptual advances in brain research, R. Miller, A.M. Ivanitsky & P.V.Balaban (Eds.), Vol. 2, Conceptual advances in Russian neuroscience: Complex brain functions. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 2000, P. 181—200.
17. Bakhchina A.V., Arutyunova K. R., Sozinov A. A.,  Demidovsky  A.V.,  Alexandrov  Y.I.  Sample entropy of the heart rate reflects properties of the system organization of behavior. Entropy. 2018, V. 20(6). pp. 1—22.
18. Bell B.G., Grubin D. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging may promote theoretical understanding of the Polygraph Test. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 2010. v. 21, № 1, pp. 52—65.
19. Davatzikos, C. et al. Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: application to lie detection. Neuroimage. 2005. № 28. Р. 663—668.
20. Farah M.J., Hutchinson J.B, Phelps E.A., Wagner A.D. Functional MRI-based lie detection: Scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2014. v 15. № 2. Р. 123—131.
21. Finn E.S., Shen X. et al. Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity. Nature Neuroscience. 2015. v. 18, № 11, P. 1664—1671.
22. Gamer M. et al. Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information // Human Brain Mapping. 2007. V. 28, N. 12. P. 1287—1301. (DOI: 10.1002/ hbm.20343).
23. Ganis G., Kosslyn S.M. et al. Neural correlates of different types of deception: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex. 2003. V. 13. № 8, P. 830.
24. Gordon N.J., Mohamed F.B. et al. The effectiveness of fMRI data when combined with polygraph data. European polygraph. 2018. v. 12, № 1. Р. 19—25.
25. Handler М, Krapohll D.J. The Use and Benefits of the Photoelectric Plethysmograph in Polygraph Testing // Polygraph. 2007. V. 36. N 1. P. 18—25.
26. Handler M., Nelson R. Automated Analysis of the Marin Dataset with the ESS-M // Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice. 2019. V. 48. N 2. P. 113—123.
27. Kalafati А., Krapohll D.J. The Difference Between the Manual and Automatic Settings for the Electrodermal Channel and a Potential Effect on Manual Scoring // Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice. 2018. V. 47. N 1. P. 37—44.
28. Kholodny Y.I., Kartashov S.I., Malakhov D.G., Orlov V.A. Improvement of the Technology of fMRI Experiments in the Concealed Information Paradigm. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2020. Р. 591—597.
29. Kovalchuk M.V., Kholodny Y.I. Functional magnetic resonance imaging augmented with polygraph: new capabilities. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (eBook), 2019. Р. 260—265.
30. Krapohll D.J. Electrodermal Responses: When is Bigger Really Better? // Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice. 2020. V. 49. N 2. P. 104—109.
31. Langleben D.D., Schroeder L. et al. Brain activity during simulated deception: An event related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage, 2002. v. 15, Р. Р. 727—732.
32. Langleben D.D. et al. Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping. 2005. v. 26. P. 262—272.
33. Lee T.M., Liu H., Tan L., Chan C.C., et al. Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Human Brain Mapping. 2002. v. 15, Р. 157—164.
34. Nelson R. Bigger is Better for Automated Scoring: Analysis of Minimum Constraints for RQ/CQ Ratios // Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice. 2020. V. 49. N 2. P. 110—120.
35. Ofen N., Whitfield-Gabrieli S. et al. Neural correlates of deception: Lying about past events and personal beliefs. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 2017. v. 12. № 1. Р. 116—127.
36. Peth, J., Sommer, T. et al. Memory detection using fMRI e does the encoding context matter? Neuroimage. 2015. № 113, Р. 164—174.
37. Rosenfeld J.P. Detecting concealed information and deception. Academic Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/C2016-0-03911-6.
38. Scientific validity of polygraph testing: a research review and evaluation — a technical memorandum. Polygraph. 1983. v. 12. № 3. P. 305.
39. Shulman, RG., Rothman, DL. A Non-cognitive Behavioral Model for Interpreting Functional Neuroimaging Studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2019. Vol. 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnhum.2019.00028.
40. Shulman, R. G., Hyder, F., Rothman, D. L. Insights from neuroenergetics into the interpretation of functional neuroimaging: an alternative empirical model for studying the brain’s support of behavior. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism. 2014. 34(11), 1721—1735.
41. Spence S.A. et al. Behavioral and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport. 2001. v. 12 № 13, Р. 2849—2853.
42. Spranger Т.М. Neurosciences and the Law: An Introduction. International Neurolaw. A Comparative Analysis — Springer-Verlag. Berlin-Heidelberg. 2012.
43. The accuracy and utility of polygraph testing (Department of Defense, DC). Polygraph. 1984. V. 13. P. 54.
44. The polygraph and lie detection. — Washington: The National Academy Press. 2003. P. 314.
45. Vendemia J.M.C. fMRI as a method of detection of deception: a review of experiences. European polygraph. 2014. v. 8, № 1. Р. 5—21.
46. Wagner A.D. Can neuroscience identify lies? In: Gazzaniga, M.S., Rakoff, J.S. (eds) A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction. Santa Barbara: University of California, 2010. P. 13—25.
47. Ward T., Wilshire C., Jackson L. The Contribution of Neuroscience to Forensic Explanation. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2018. V. 24. № 3. Р. 195—209. https://DOI.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1427746 (access date: Feb.10, 2021).
48. Zakharova N.V. et al. Induced Delusional Disorder (Folie Deux). In: Velichkovsky B.M., Balaban P.M., Ushakov V.L. (eds) Advances in Cognitive Research, Artificial Intelligence and Neuroinformatics. Intercognsci 2020. / Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2020. Vol. 1358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-71637-0_66.
49. Ashburner J. et al. SPM12 Manual. London: UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 2020. URL: https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/doc/manual.pdf (Accessed 9.07.2021).