National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Moving Forward: Potential Next Steps
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

A

References

Aharoni, E., G. M. Vincent, C. L. Harenski, V. D. Calhoun, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, M. S. Gazzaniga, and K. A. Kiehl. 2013. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(15):6223–6228.

Ajiboye, A. B., F. R. Willett, D. R. Young, W. D. Memberg, B. A. Murphy, J. P. Miller, B. L. Walter, J. A. Sweet, H. A. Hoyen, M. W. Keith, P. H. Peckham, J. D. Simeral, J. P. Donoghue, L. R. Hochberg, and R. F. Kirsch. 2017. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: A proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet 389(10081):1821–1830.

American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Breakspear, M. 2017. Dynamic models of large-scale brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 20(3):340–352.

Buckholtz, J. W., and D. L. Faigman. 2014. Promises, promises for neuroscience and law. Current Biology 24(18):R861–R867.

Buckholtz, J. W., V. F. Reyna, C. Slobogin. 2016. A neuro-legal lingua franca: Bridging law and neuroscience on the issue of self-control. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Journal; Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 16-32. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2788178 (accessed June 18, 2018).

Chan, A. M., A. R. Dykstra, V. Jayaram, M. K. Leonard, K. E. Travis, B. Gygi, J. M. Baker, E. Eskandar, L. R. Hochberg, E. Halgren, and S. S. Cash. 2014. Speech-specific tuning of neurons in human superior temporal gyrus. Cerebral Cortex 24(10):2679–2693.

Chang, L. J., P. J. Gianaros, S. B. Manuck, A. Krishnan, and T. D. Wager. 2015. A sensitive and specific neural signature for picture-induced negative affect. PLOS Biology 13(6):e1002180.

Cowen, A. S., M. M. Chun, and B. A. Kuhl. 2014. Neural portraits of perception: Reconstructing face images from evoked brain activity. Neuroimage 94:12–22.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

Davis, K. 2016. Personal injury lawyers turn to neuroscience to back claims of chronic pain. ABA Journal. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/personal_injury_lawyers_turn_to_neuroscience_to_back_claims_of_chronic_pain (accessed May 22, 2018).

Davis, K. D., H. Flor, H. T. Greely, G. D. Iannetti, S. Mackey, M. Ploner, A. Pustilnik, I. Tracey, R. D. Treede, and T. D. Wager. 2017. Brain imaging tests for chronic pain: Medical, legal and ethical issues and recommendations. Nature Reviews Neurology 13(10):624–638.

Denno, D. W. 2015. The myth of the double-edged sword: An empirical study of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases. Boston College Law Review 56:493–551.

Dorfman, H. M., A. Meyer-Lindenberg, and J. W. Buckholtz. 2014. Neurobiological mechanisms for impulsive-aggression: The role of MAOA. Current Topics in Behavioral Neuroscience 17:297–313.

Drinan, C. H. 2016. The Miller Revolution. Iowa Law Review 101:1787–1831.

Ezzyat, Y., P. A. Wanda, D. F. Levy, A. Kadel, A. Aka, I. Pedisich, M. R. Sperling, A. D. Sharan, B. C. Lega, A. Burks, R. E. Gross, C. S. Inman, B. C. Jobst, M. A. Gorenstein, K. A. Davis, G. A. Worrell, M. T. Kucewicz, J. M. Stein, R. Gorniak, S. R. Das, D. S. Rizzuto, and M. J. Kahana. 2018. Closed-loop stimulation of temporal cortex rescues functional networks and improves memory. Nature Communications 9(1):365.

Faigman, D. L. 1999. Legal alchemy: The use and misuse of science in the law. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.

Faigman, D. L. 2008. The limits of science in the courtroom. In Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom, edited by E. Borgida and S. T. Fiske. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 301–314.

Farahany, N. A. 2015. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in U.S. criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2(3):485–509.

Ficks, C. A., and I. D. Waldman. 2014. Candidate genes for aggression and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of association studies of the 5HTTLPR and MAOA-uVNTR. Behavioral Genetics 44(5):427–444.

Hampson, R. E., D. Song, B. S. Robinson, D. Fetterhoff, A. S. Dakos, B. M. Roeder, X. She, R. T. Wicks, M. R. Witcher, D. E. Couture, A. W. Laxton, H. Munger-Clary, G. Popli, M. J. Sollman, C. T. Whitlow, V. Z. Marmarelis, T. W. Berger, and S. A. Deadwyler. 2018. Developing a hippocampal neural prosthetic to facilitate human memory encoding and recall. Journal of Neural Engineering 15(3):036014.

Hochberg, L. R., D. Bacher, B. Jarosiewicz, N. Y. Masse, J. D. Simeral, J. Vogel, S. Haddadin, J. Liu, S. S. Cash, P. van der Smagt, and J. P. Donoghue. 2012. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485(7398):372–375.

Huth, A. G., T. Lee, S. Nishimoto, N. Y. Bilenko, A. T. Vu, and J. L. Gallant. 2016. Decoding the semantic content of natural movies from human brain activity. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 10:81.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

International Schizophrenia Consortium., S. M. Purcell, N. R. Wray, J. L. Stone, P. M. Visscher, M. C. O’Donovan, P. F. Sullivan, and P. Sklar. 2009. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature 460(7256):748–752.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Krishnan, A., C. W. Woo, L. J. Chang, L. Ruzic, X. Gu, M. Lopez-Sola, P. L. Jackson, J. Pujol, J. Fan, and T. D. Wager. 2016. Somatic and vicarious pain are represented by dissociable multivariate brain patterns. eLife 5:e15166.

Kuffler, S. W. 1942. Responses during the refractory period at myoneural junction in isolated nerve-muscle fibre preparation. Journal of Neurophysiology 5(3):199–209.

Langleben, D. D., J. W. Loughead, W. B. Bilker, K. Ruparel, A. R. Childress, S. I. Busch, and R. C. Gur. 2005. Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping 26(4):262–272.

Logothetis, N. K. 2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453(7197):869–878.

Martin, A. R., C. R. Gignoux, R. K. Walters, G. L. Wojcik, B. M. Neale, S. Gravel, M. J. Daly, C. D. Bustamante, and E. E. Kenny. 2017. Human demographic history impacts genetic risk prediction across diverse populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 100(4):635–649.

McSwiggan, S., B. Elger, and P. S. Appelbaum. 2017. The forensic use of behavioral genetics in criminal proceedings: Case of the MAOA-l genotype. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 50:17–23.

Miller, G. 2010. Brain exam may have swayed jury in sentencing convicted murderer. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/12/brain-exam-may-have-swayed-jury-sentencing-convicted-murderer (accessed May 22, 2018).

Naselaris, T., C. A. Olman, D. E. Stansbury, K. Ugurbil, and J. L. Gallant. 2015. A voxel-wise encoding model for early visual areas decodes mental images of remembered scenes. Neuroimage 105:215–228.

Nemrodov, D., M. Niemeier, J. N. Y. Mok, and A. Nestor. 2016. The time course of individual face recognition: A pattern analysis of ERP signals. NeuroImage 132:469–476.

Nemrodov, D., M. Niemeier, A. Patel, and A. Nestor. 2018. The neural dynamics of facial identity processing: Insights from EEG-based pattern analysis and image reconstruction. eNeuro 5(1).

Nestor, A., D. C. Plaut, and M. Behrmann. 2016. Feature-based face representations and image reconstruction from behavioral and neural data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(2):416–421.

Nishimoto, S., A. T. Vu, T. Naselaris, Y. Benjamini, B. Yu, and J. L. Gallant. 2011. Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology 21(19):1641–1646.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). 2016. Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validitiy of feature-comparison methods.https://obamawhitehouse.Archives.Gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf (accessed May 22, 2018).

Poldrack, R. A., Y. O. Halchenko, and S. J. Hanson. 2009. Decoding the large-scale structure of brain function by classifying mental states across individuals. Psychological Science 20(11):1364–1372.

Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millen[n]ium. Neuron 35(1):21–23.

Rossi, P. J., A. Gunduz, and M. S. Okun. 2015. The subthalamic nucleus, limbic function, and impulse control. Neuropsychological Review 25(4):398–410.

Schizophrenia Psychiatric Genome-Wide Association Study Consortium. 2011. Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci. Nature Genetics 43(10):969–976.

Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. 2014. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature 511(7510):421–427.

Shen, F. X. 2016. Neuroscientific evidence as instant replay. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3(2):343–349.

Shen, F. X., E. Twedell, C. Opperman, J. D. S. Krieg, M. Brandt-Fontaine, J. Preston, J. McTeigue, A. Yasis, and M. Carlson. 2017. The limited effect of electroencephalography memory recognition evidence on assessments of defendant credibility. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4(2):330–364.

Stansbury, D. E., T. Naselaris, and J. L. Gallant. 2013. Natural scene statistics account for the representation of scene categories in human visual cortex. Neuron 79(5):1025–1034.

The National Court Rules Committee. 2018. Federal rules of evidence. https://www.rulesofevidence.org (accessed May 22, 2018).

Tiihonen, J., M. R. Rautiainen, H. M. Ollila, E. Repo-Tiihonen, M. Virkkunen, A. Palotie, O. Pietilainen, K. Kristiansson, M. Joukamaa, H. Lauerma, J. Saarela, S. Tyni, H. Vartiainen, J. Paananen, D. Goldman, and T. Paunio. 2015. Genetic background of extreme violent behavior. Molecular Psychiatry 20(6):786–792.

Wager, T. D., L. Y. Atlas, M. A. Lindquist, M. Roy, C. W. Woo, and E. Kross. 2013. An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. New England Journal of Medicine 368(15):1388–1397.

Waller, R., H. L. Dotterer, L. Murray, A. M. Maxwell, and L. W. Hyde. 2017. White-matter tract abnormalities and antisocial behavior: A systematic review of diffusion tensor imaging studies across development. NeuroImage: Clinical 14:201–215.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

Woo, C. W., L. Koban, E. Kross, M. A. Lindquist, M. T. Banich, L. Ruzic, J. R. Andrews-Hanna, and T. D. Wager. 2014. Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection. Nature Communications 5:5380.

Woo, C. W., L. J. Chang, M. A. Lindquist, and T. D. Wager. 2017. Building better biomarkers: Brain models in translational neuroimaging. Nature Neuroscience 20(3):365–377.

Zhu, L., A. C. Jenkins, E. Set, D. Scabini, R. T. Knight, P. H. Chiu, B. KingCasas, and M. Hsu. 2014. Damage to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects tradeoffs between honesty and self-interest. Nature Neuroscience 17(10):1319–1321.

Zunhammer, M., U. Bingel, T. D. Wager, and P. I. Consortium. 2018. Placebo effects on the Neurologic Pain Signature: A meta-analysis of individual participant functional magnetic resonance imaging data. JAMA Neurology. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2017.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25150.
×
Page 50
Next: Appendix B Workshop Agenda »
Neuroforensics: Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Technological advances in noninvasive neuroimaging, neurophysiology, genome sequencing, and other methods together with rapid progress in computational and statistical methods and data storage have facilitated large-scale collection of human genomic, cognitive, behavioral, and brain-based data. The rapid development of neurotechnologies and associated databases has been mirrored by an increase in attempts to introduce neuroscience and behavioral genetic evidence into legal proceedings.

In March 2018, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine organized a workshop in order to explore the current uses of neuroscience and bring stakeholders from neuroscience and legal societies together in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Participants worked together to advance an understanding of neurotechnologies that could impact the legal system and the state of readiness to consider these technologies and where appropriate, to integrate them into the legal system. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!