Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychosis and Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Transl Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 26;8(1):227. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0274-8.
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 the mens 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.
尽管结构神经影像学技术在 21 世纪的研究中很受欢迎，但在实际环境中，其结果在个体层面上的推断方面的转化效果有限。目前，结构神经影像学方法经常被引入到刑事法医评估中，以帮助评估被告的精神错乱状态，目的是为被告的犯罪意图提供“证据的融合”。这种方法可能为法官的决策提供关键支持。尽管神经影像学旨在减少法律环境中的不确定性和争议，并提高刑事裁决的客观性，但结构神经影像学在法医环境中的应用受到评估证据中的认知偏差的阻碍，这些偏差导致对成像结果的误解。因此，制定关于正确应用和解释神经影像学证据的明确准则变得越来越重要。在当前的论文中，我们回顾了有关法庭环境中的结构神经影像学的文献，旨在确定其正确应用和解释的规则。这些规则旨在减少偏差风险，侧重于以下几个方面：（i）描述性诊断，（ii）解剖-临床相关性，（iii）大脑可塑性，以及（iv）避免逻辑谬误，如反向推理。此外，通过对真实法医案例的分析，我们描述了由于对成像的不正确解释而经常观察到的错误。为神经影像学的正确引入及其最终解释定义了明确的准则。
