The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings. Issue 1 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scarpazza, C.; Ferracuti, S.; Miolla, A.; Sartori, G.
• Is Part Of: Translational psychiatry. Volume 8:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 10
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Psychiatry -- Research -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Research -- Periodicals; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Translational Research -- Periodicals; Health Policy -- Periodicals; Public Health -- Periodicals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1038/s41398-018-0274-8
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2158-3188

Abstract

Abstract Despite the popularity of structural neuroimaging techniques in twenty-first-century research, its results have had limited translational impact in real-world settings, where inferences need to be made at the individual level. Structural neuroimaging methods are now introduced frequently to aid in assessing defendants for insanity in criminal forensic evaluations, with the aim of providing "convergence" of evidence on themens rea of the defendant. This approach may provide pivotal support for judges' decisions. Although neuroimaging aims to reduce uncertainty and controversies in legal settings and to increase the objectivity of criminal rulings, the application of structural neuroimaging in forensic settings is hampered by cognitive biases in the evaluation of evidence that lead to misinterpretation of the imaging results. It is thus increasingly important to have clear guidelines on the correct ways to apply and interpret neuroimaging evidence. In the current paper, we review the literature concerning structural neuroimaging in court settings with the aim of identifying rules for its correct application and interpretation. These rules, which aim to decrease the risk of biases, focus on the importance of (i) descriptive diagnoses, (ii) anatomo-clinical correlation, (iii) brain plasticity and (iv) avoiding logical fallacies, such as reverse inference. In addition, through the analysis of real forensic cases, we describe errors frequently observed due to incorrect interpretations of imaging. Clear guidelines for both the correct circumstances for introducing neuroimaging and its eventual interpretation are defined