Extended Essay: Psychology
To what extend does fMri provide accurate information related to eyewitness testimony studies.
Introduction
This essay will examine the magnetic scans of the brain (Fmri) to measure the consistency of eyewitness
testimony. The most important piece of evidence that it is used to get grips with criminal legal cases is
eyewitness testimony. So far, in the vast majority of cases they believe of placing an undefined amount
of belief into an eyewitness statement can be heavily unjustified. As time advances, scientific research
has helped to prove and demonstrate the pliability of the witness’ memory. Moreover, it has been
verified that eyewitness testimony is sometimes inaccurate which results to false conviction of innocent
subjects. The U.S Department of Justice (European journal of law and technology/year 2010) started a
study were DNA evidence was examined again for cases which suspects were sentenced previous to the
forensic use of DNA technology. Up until this moment, DNA technology has led to the liberation of 172
individuals who were incorrectly imprisoned, 14 of those were even punished to death. Examines reveal
that those individuals were condemned on the basis of eyewitness testimony.
Eyewitness memory’s validity for resolving crimes has not been reduced by the growth of forensic DNA
tests. To this extent, forensic experts have emphasized on the problem of how to differentiate a witness
who is intentionally not saying the truth from one who is saying the truth. Jurors, judges and police
investigators normally use particular intuitions and unexperienced theories of memory to approximate
the scope of the witness reports from memory resembles to what truly happened. Regrettably, these
intuitions have been proved to be mainly mistaken.
Due to the prior statements, there is obviously a grave necessity to classify and develop more unbiased
and current tools that can aid in evaluating the range to which a specific eyewitness memory report
must be trusted on as evidence. This objective levies arduous hypothetical and procedural tests that
have obstructed development up to this point. In trying to surpass these encounters, scientists from the
fields of human memory, neuroscience, forensic psychology, artificial intelligence and law have merged
knowledge in a project known as The Assessment of Eyewitness Memory.
CHAPTER 1: THE DARRELLE EXNER MURDER
The Darrelle Exner murder.
In 1996, a 14-year old was found dead in Regina, Canada by Kenneth Patton who was out for a stroll. The
police interrogated three suspects, which were friends with the victim. Douglas Firemoon confessed that
he stabbed her. After 15 hours of interrogation, an anonym suspect confessed beating her to death.
Another suspect confessed that he “blacked out” but must’ve done it, describing details. Regardless of
the different ways of her murdered described by the subjects, the police knew that Darrelle was
strangled. DNA evidence proved that the murdered was Kenneth Patton ( Wells, G.L and Seelau, E.P
1995)
Psychological research shows that memory does not work like a video recording. Neuroscience research
involved in false and imagined memories, we can understand why memory does not work like a video
recording by misinformation effects and reconsolidation phenomena. Demonstrating that DNA evidence
is much stronger than witness memory, as psychological research shows. Larry Henderson was accused
of holding a gun on James Womble while another person shot Rodney Harper to death, In November
2003, in New Jersey. Womble classified Henderson from a photo array as the murder. And he was simply
convicted for manslaughter and assault. There were some problems due to wombles’s failing of
identification. For example, at the investigation room, he failed to assure that Henderson was the
person in the photo array until the investigators interfered and applied pressure and Womble had
ingested cocaine and wine on the day of the murder, this is an example that shows how even confident
eyewitness report may relate to imprecise memories.
CHAPTER 2
Differentiating true and false memories with the help of neuroimaging.
Psychologist do recognize the eyewitness testimony but is not precise enough. Neuroscientist can
actually prove if the eyewitness’ memory is accurate or inaccurate by using brain techniques like,
functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Understanding the neural basis of true and false memories
Neuroimaging studies show that parietal and temporal lobe are active during recovery of true and false
memories. These findings are beneficial for policy makers and judges in deciding how to teach juries
about the reasons why false memories can be convincing.
SUB CHAPTER 2 A
Theories About Memory
Experimental research on memory has been classified by two opposing ideas. One of the two deals with
memory as a storehouse, and underscores the singularity of disremembering in the sense of
“information loss.” This idea has resulted in a quantity-oriented method sideways with an inert
character for the person who is remembering. Another view handles memory as a reconstruction of
previous events. In this method the remembered is perceived to have a more vigorous part in deciding
the communication between what is prearranged and recalled and the events that really happened. At
this point the main interest is not on only disremembering, but preferably on false recalling events or
yet remembering events or facts that certainly did not took place. Differences between the different
types of memories:
Memory as storehouse
Importance on forgetting.
Quantity-oriented method.
Inert role of remembered.
Memory as Reconstruction
Importance on false memory
Accurateness/quality oriented method.
Dynamic role of remembered.
To demonstrate the reconstructive method, the following case study (published by European Journal of
Law and technology) can be considered. A number of participants were questioned to wait by their own
in the researcher’s office below an untrue excuse. After, various seconds, they were transferred to
another area and asked to call back each single detail that they had seen while remaining in the office.
The participants were asked a set of questions like: “Was there a desk in the area?”, “were there
chairs?”, “How many chairs did you see?” , “Did you see a wine bottle” , “Did you see books?” , “Did you
see a picnic basket?” In reality, there were no books in the area. However, in the study 19 of the 30
participants stated seeing books. Just a few saw the wine bottle, and one subject saw the picnic basket.
Evidently, books are an actual main component of the typical office space. This study proves that what
people tend to remember depends on unconscious implications concerning what should have occurred.
In this case, participants remembered what they should expect in an office. Yet, these implications
incline to be mistaken. Furthermore, false implications and inaccurate memory reconstructions are
frequently the consequence of untrue information that is openly implied by the questioning process
itself, for instance, when the eyewitness is requested to answer a critical question. Laboratory
experiments have definitely proven that eyewitness testimony is never accurate not to mention, precise
and absolutely true. Hence, eyewitness statements are not constantly trustworthy, even if the witness is
making an honest effort to tell the reality. Officers, juries and judges depend on subjective intuitions and
unexperienced theories in assessing the truth of eyewitness testimony. As previously mentioned, these
intuitions are frequently erroneous.
SUB CHAPTER 2 B
The Computer Assisted Investigation of Eyewitness Reports
At Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Centre of Computers and Law is in control of established
computational characteristics of the measurement procedure. Some experimenters have tried to
conduct the memory report as an only ‘list’ of single plans, assessing the ‘certainty or uncertainty’ of
each plan, but this procedure is enormously slow and overwhelmed by prejudice with concern to such
arguments as what establishes a single plan, how to manage plans that are partially true and partially
false, and how to take into cases in which the general essence of the report might be precise, regardless
of imprecisions in the certain details. Therefore, the advancement of a more trustworthy and effective
procedure of evaluating the general quality of eyewitness memory reports would be of abundant
importance, as it would offer a valuable research instrument that is presently missing.
SUB CHAPTER 2 C
Differencing true and false memory with neuroimaging
One of the many ways in which cognitive neuroscience investigation could notify the judges about
memory alarms is a difficult issue when differentiating true and false memory. Although psychologists
usually take into consideration that eyewitness memory is occasionally inaccurate, no definitive
cognitive behavioral procedures subsist for differing true from false memory. Therefore, a thrilling
opportunity is that neuroscientists might use brain imaging techniques, such fmri to offer a strong
answer where the eyewitness is actually saying the truth.
Throughout the last 15 years a rising number of studies have demonstrated that fmri can, on occasions,
distinguish true memories from false one in laboratory circumstances. Numerous neuroimaging studies
have applied experiments in which participants firstly study lists of identically related words or alike
visual shapes. Sequentially, researchers scan the participants as they try to identify old or new three
different types of objects: old objects that appeared previously in the list, identically related new objects
that did not appear earlier, or not linked new objects that did not appear previously. In these
experiments, participants usually categorize the old objects as old much more often than they
categorized the new, unrelated objects as old, which establishes confirmation for true or authentic
memory. The critical result is that participants also categorized new but related objects as old much
more often than new and not linked objects; These inaccurate answer integrates as evidence for
apocryphal memory.
Further neuroimaging studies have tested false memories that are a consequence of unclear perception
and imagination. For instance, looking through pictures of some items and imaging others in response to
a verbal indication ( “imagine a globe” ), participants from time to time incorrectly remember that they
saw a picture of something that they imagined (a globe). Yet many neuroimaging studies have tested
false memories that are a consequence of the presentation of deception about when really occurred (an
example could be, a man’s knee was injured during a fatal accident, rather than his ankle.)
Studies like this one have usually demonstrated that several of the same brain regions are active for true
memories and false memories, even though they have recognized some alterations. Existed studies have
stated that brain regions convoluted in encoding or retrieval sensory-perceptual information incline to
be more active throughout retrieval of veracious than fallacious memories. Even though the regions of
the brain that differentiate true from false memories vary according to the studies, the results are
similar with the sensory reactivation hypothesis that arose due to previous behavioral studies presenting
the fact that accurate memories have a tendency to be related with retrieval of grander sensory and
perceptual detail than false memories. Nevertheless, neuroimaging proof for sensory reactivation
derives from studies where the experimenters examines memory soon later contact to target
information.
How to comprehend the neural origin of true and false memories.
As I mentioned before human memory does not work as a video recording, and we need to understand
why is that. Neuroimaging studies have exposed that brain areas are active during the retrieval of false
and true memories. These include, prefrontal, parietal and temporal cortices. For example, a group of
individuals can be displayed with a variety of visual images, shapes. These shapes can be recognized
because they have seen them before but at the same time they might get confused when they
incorrectly recognize shapes that they have not seen before. This is an overlapping brain activity and it
occurs when participants identify true studied shapes as well as identifying shapes that have not been
studied. In this case participants would answer back “old” on the origin of visual comparison or ‘gist’ if
the participants think that the visual piece studied has similar colors or shapes. Other studies simply
show semantic gist information, including words like bronze, gold, silver these words can be used in the
following way. For example, the participant can remember studying the word gold, when in fact the
words studied were bronze and silver. According to neuroimaging data studies, brain areas associated
with semantic processing can subscribe to equally false and true memories that are created on semantic
information.
There is a finding that must be considered, individuals might bemuse imagination with memory. It has
been demonstrated that cognitive studies convey the actual idea that solely imagining events which may
have happened prior to the present can upsurge assurance that the event really happened. An
increasing number of neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that training participants to remember
actual past events in their life and imagine supposed events that could occur in a future enrolls a
network between certain regions of the brain. Like hippocampus, medial temporal lobes and medial
parietal regions. In another words brain areas are activated when participants are instructed to
remember past personal events and imagine likely events that might happen in the future. So all of
those areas in the brain form a network, as they are connected. At the same time the individual is
remembering a past event and imagining a future event. Furthermore, these studies have also
demonstrated a part that is involved with cognitive confusions linking with imagination and memory.
Memory and imagination can occasionally express the increasing of activity in certain regions. These
regions are related with visual imagery throughout memory retrieval. These findings are extremely
helpful to jury instructions, because they provide information about neural basis of imagination and
memory.
Distortion effects and memory reconsolidation.
The distortion effect can happen when misrepresentative suggestions or imprecise information is
provided subsequently an event that results in an unclear memory of the actual event. According, to
neuroimaging studies the distortion (misinformation) effect reveals the strength of encoding actual
event against the strength of encoding the following misinformation. Meaning that it is comparing both
memories, the real one and the false one. To back up this idea there is a study. The study consisted in a
researcher that examined participants while they were watching a certain event (a set of pictures). As
well during a following distortion and misinformation stage when they watch the same set of pictures
but with a modification. The results demonstrated that “encoding-related activity” (encoding is the step
in which the information enters the memory for it to be stored. It is the first step for the creation of new
memories) in the left hippocampus and perirhinal cortex foresees the following true or false memory.
More activity in the previously mentioned regions throughout the first event was linked with the
creation of accurate true memories, whilst more activity in those regions throughout the distortion and
misinformation stage is linked with the creation of inaccurate memories.
As a last example, in order to understand how people, remember facts in judicial matters neurological
research can be helpful. It is essential to contemplate the wonder of reconsolidation. Memory
reconsolidation is a process where new memory is being recall and actively consolidated. Memories that
are in the long-term are stronger and modified due to memory reconsolidation. Normally, evidence
from memory reconsolidation has been done with rats or non-human animals. There have been many
experiments that show reconsolidation for different types of memories however, boundary
circumstances have been recognized. Evidence demonstrates that memory reconsolidation works best
for older memories that are stored in the long-term memory. Even though, many of the studies used for
evidence of memory reconsolidation are with non-human animals, there is one that humans have
participated. In this study experimenters induced produced fear to the participants by matching a
picture of a coloured square with an electrical shock. After a day, experimenters revived the emotion by
showing the same square but without the shock during a 10-minute phase. According to experimenters
this time applied an effect in the reconsolidation process. The result demonstrated that the emotion of
fear is reduced during that period of time. Inversely, if the fear memory is reactivated 6 hours before the
procedures, then the fear emotion doesn’t need to last a long period of time.
To keep significant and updating memories with accurate information, reconsolidation is the main
instrument. Nevertheless, reconsolidation does not always work this way. Sometimes it can alter and
distort memory, this happens after a while due to memory reactivation. It has been demonstrated that
reactivation can increase true and false memory. As a matter of fact, the misinformation effect and
reconsolidation effect are possibly connected. Hence, still there is more investigation to be done to
certificate and comprehend the origin of memory reconsolidation in humans. Neuroscience
investigations on reconsolidation definitely demonstrate an understanding of how memory can be
changed as time passes.
Memory Reconsolidation can be extremely helpful in judicial matters, particularly when the investigation
is conducted with misinformation of witnesses’ testimony. As the nature of memory in human beings
can be altered we need to know more on misinformation in order to properly instruct juries.
Conclusion
Many courtrooms are already using modern neuroscience and brain scans to investigate cases. An
example could be that some attorneys are deciding to use brain images as evidence when criminals
suggest the idea that their ‘brain is bad and it made them do it’. Presenting brains scans to a courtroom
as an evidence is essential for some cases. Specially in the ones where memory precision and
truthfulness is a concern. Memory is prompted to produce fault and misrepresentation. This is exactly
why evidence for neuroimaging studies is extremely useful for comprehending evidence form cognitive
psychology. As well as, neuroimaging studies can help judicial individuals and other subjects to learn and
understand the origin of memory. Neuroscience can be applied to single cases. If the prosecution wants
to search for Fmri in order to validate their rights that a witness is correctly remembering a certain event
or the other way around, the court has to apply an admission so that scientific evidence can be used in
the case. This occurs because of two main reasons; the interpretation and trustworthiness of fmri
evidence can be ambiguous and uncertain when deciding whether it is a true or a false memory. The
other reason is that jurors can be overwhelmed with this kind of evidence and may be definitely
influenced by it. Even if the information provided is mostly terminated with text, the presentations of
Fmri increases scientific reliability of real and imaginary findings. In another case juror conducted a case
where the defendant was lying about the crime they committed. The brain scans showed guiltier
decisions than when other devices were used to investigate if the person was lying or not. One
interesting subject that has always been a battle point for the defense in criminal cases is the use of a lie
detector result in court, especially to prove that the defendant did not commit the crime. However,
even in recent cases, following the advice of experts, both from the prosecution and the defense, the
courts are reluctant to permit such abuse as results are not a 100% true.
In this essay the main objective was to determine how memory is measured and which ways are the
more reliable ones, for example brain scanning. It is very important to recognize the difference between
verbal reports of witnesses and the events that actually occurred. In order to decide the increase of the
functioning of a person’s brain when they are remembering what happened and are reporting about
this, Fmri technology is used.
1. Richard V. De Mulder and Kees van Noortwijk. “CORMAS: A Computerized Tool for the Analysis
of Eyewitness Memory Correspondence”. European Journal of Law and Technology, Vol 1, Issue
3, 2010.
2. Daniel L Schacter & Elizabeth F Loftus “memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience
contribute?”. Nature neuroscience volume 16 number 2. Web. Feb. 2013.
3. Stephen B. Porter and Alysha T. Baker “CSI (Crime Scene Induction): Creating False Memories of
Committing Crime” CellPress, Vol 19, No.12. Web. Dec. 2015.
