How to re-engineer fMRI?
Kirk Fraser
Posts: 364
An fMRI machine is very expensive and deserves a cheap in-home model if possible. How can one be built in to a helmet? The idea as far as I've seen is a combination of radio waves and magnets that show what the blood vessels in the brain are doing. That feature plus a polygraph used at the same time is reportedly 100% effective at lie detection. There are serious needs for 100% correct lie detection, starting with courts which currently toss 25% average to 60% on some crimes innocent people into prison. Folks at home would like an accurate answer to family questions like, where were you last night?
So to start with, what are the physics involved that need to be simulated a cheaper way? What are the radio wave frequencies, detection techniques, magnet fields required? I've been in a CT scan machine and see the hula-hoop of electronics spinning around - can that motion be simulated like stationary radar antennas do? What else is needed to get the job done? Thank you.
So to start with, what are the physics involved that need to be simulated a cheaper way? What are the radio wave frequencies, detection techniques, magnet fields required? I've been in a CT scan machine and see the hula-hoop of electronics spinning around - can that motion be simulated like stationary radar antennas do? What else is needed to get the job done? Thank you.
Comments
Although I doubt he will offer to reverse engineer any of this for you, I do know that he is a big fan of Parallax.
If your nice and he has some free time he might be willing to bounce an idea or two.
https://www.oumedicine.com/dwu/c-clin/c01-neuro/c01_02/index.html
RickB and localroger thank you too.
Subject: Small fMRI project?
Dr. Wu,
I am seeking a wearable fMRI after reading a combination of fMRI and Polygraph at the same time gives 100% accurate lie detection, which could free 25% of prisoners who are actually innocent. Is there a way you can make or help create a very low cost project to build such a device like projects sold on Parallax.com or other home hobby sites?
Here is a websites that may provide ideas for this project.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/imaging/a-new-wearable-brain-scanner
Thank you very much.
Kirk W. Fraser
www.theManChild.org
The magnetic field strength required for MRI makes head mounted or portable MRI imaging systems highly unlikely. Other imaging modes are more likely to be used for such scanners if they are at all possible.
Non starter, currently. But, let's say we can do that. Could happen.
Intent is a slippery thing. Intent is what we convict on too. (and that does bring up many arguments for handling crime very differently than we often do in the US too, but out of scope for this forum. Just saying.)
A determined, informed subject can refactor intent, literally convince themselves of some reality. While this is not generally applicable to the problem at hand; namely, freeing innocent people, it does present a significant issue, given the pitch is 100 percent lie detection. It would take a trained group, investing very significant amounts of time to even consider untangling too. If it can even be untangled. If it's possible at all, the outcome would be expressed in terms of degrees of confidence, never 100 percent.
Our current science has not even suggested doing any of that is plausible. And that is for ordinary people, who we would have to assume do not harbor intent to be set free, just because they can. Go ahead, filter for that. I'll wait.
If they present any form of psychopathy, it's even worse.
I submit these ideas alone would warrant a no reply to the email.
Sounds like a good plot line for a Black Mirror episode.
Sounds like we're getting into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory with this "magical device" and "moral convictions". Assuming the device has been proven safe to use what possible moral conviction could be used for refusing to submit? Only thing I can come up with is that the person is guilty.
That is exactly my point. Can you honestly say that you have considered every possible consequence in allowing the state to compel someone to submit themselves to such an interrogation?
No, but could it be worse than what is happening now?
There are now research magnets in the 7T range (normal studies typically use 3T magnets and some particular studies require 5T magnets). There are sites with pictures of serious incidents with metal getting into the room and the aftermath. More uhm, senior members will note their Stent cards will show the maximum field strength allowable for that particular stent.
To the OP, there are a number of good sites on MRI principles. And just like any other medical imaging system, there are trade offs. Power use, power output, field strength, processing algorithms to take k space data and turn it into image. But there may be noise in the signal, how would you be sure you are not convicting someone on an artifact?
Goofy as our system is, it errs (or should by the original intent) on the side of defendants; of all the systems I have either read about or observed, ours is still the best system out there. Misuse and abuse discussions of "the system" is for sites other than this one.
It seems the courts agree that at present there are issues with this idea: http://stlr.org/2018/01/10/does-fmri-lie-detection-have-a-future-in-the-courtroom
https://openpet.lbl.gov/
Courts typically abuse citizens who maintain their innocence by offering a polygraph test at the defendant's expense then if they pass the test, it is not even mentioned in court, costing the defendant thousands for nothing. Apparently an incentive to take a plea bargain. An fMRI exam would cost much more, which is a reason for trying to engineer a much cheaper machine so the whole process can be afforded by innocents who may be living in poverty. A combined device would be useful in many other cases where prison is not a problem, such as when person B lies denying running into the car of person A, blocking insurance payment. It could be used in Press Conferences to tell if a politician or a reporter is lying or telling the truth. In all cases better than 90-95% accuracy is required to get serious attention.
The normal route is to wait for government funding to do a full study. All kinds of things may happen. The person who made the initial discovery may find some other research topic more interesting, he may have retired, or any such failure to follow up the discovery with a full study may happen. After one or more full studies, professionals would become more serious about making it cheaper.
Special thanks to Tubular for the link to the PET scan project, and thanks to everyone else too.
These people have good intent. Of that, I have no doubt. All I can say is, careful what you wish for.
There are also people out there with nefarious intent. High claims = high rewards.
Defeating something like this would happen in a very short time, and the same government that may fund the research, will fund doing that too.
Ask why. It's good for you.
And that is all I will put here on this. Good luck!
If Barbara Walters could defeat simultaneous polygraph + fMRI, then one can assume she is speaking news reports as true without being sure they are true. Perhaps any lie detector can only tell what a person believes, without regard for actual reality. Yet if a machine can tell what a person believes v. what they say but don't believe it might be useful in court to a jury that has no other fact to base their decision on.