ArticlePloS one2015
An electroencephalography network and connectivity analysis for deception in instructed lying tasks.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EEG-based deception detection using weighted dual perspective visibility graph analysis.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Deceptive but Not Honest Manipulative Actions Are Associated with Increased Interaction between Middle and Inferior Frontal gyri.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deception is an impactful social event that has been the focus of an abundance of researches over recent decades. In this paper, an electroencephalography (EEG) study is presented regarding the cognitive processes of an instructed liar/truth-teller during the time window of stimulus (question) delivery period (SDP) prior to their deceptive/truthful responses towards questions related to authentic (WE: with prior experience) and fictional experience (NE: no prior experience). To investigate deception in non-experienced events, the subjects were given stimuli in a mock interview scenario that induced them to fabricate lies. To analyze the data, frequency domain network and connectivity analysis was performed in the source space in order to provide a more systematic level understanding of deception during SDP. This study reveals several groups of neuronal generators underlying both the instructed lying (IL) and the instructed truth-telling (IT) conditions for both tasks during the SDP. Despite the similarities existed in these group components, significant differences were found in the intra- and inter-group connectivity between the IL and IT conditions in either task. Additionally, the response time was found to be positively correlated with the clustering coefficient of the inferior frontal gyrus (44R) in the WE-IL condition and positively correlated with the clustering coefficient of the precuneus (7L) and the angular gyrus (39R) in the WE-IT condition. However, the response time was found to be marginally negatively correlated with the clustering coefficient of the secondary auditory cortex (42L) in the NE-IL condition and negatively correlated with the clustering coefficient of the somatosensory association cortex (5L, R) in the NE-IT condition. Therefore, these results provide complementary and intuitive evidence for the differences between the IL and IT conditions in SDP for two types of deception tasks, thus elucidating the electrophysiological mechanisms underlying SDP of deception from regional, inter-regional, network, and inter-network scale analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.