ArticleScientific reports2019
Internal cost of spontaneous deception revealed by ERPs and EEG spectral perturbations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deception Detection from Five-Channel Wearable EEG on LieWaves: A Reproducible Baseline for Subject-Dependent and Subject-Independent Evaluation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Attenuated neural activity in processing decision-making feedback in uncertain conditions in patients with mild cognitive impairment.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- To lie or to tell the truth? The influence of processing the opponent's feedback on the forthcoming choice.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The path of dishonesty: identification of mental processes with electrical neuroimaging.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- The role of conflict processing mechanism in deception responses.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Neural Dynamics Underlying the Evaluation Process of Ambiguous Options During Reward-Related Decision-Making.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
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
Abundant literature has studied the behavioral and neural correlates of deception, but little research has focused on the internal cost of spontaneous deception. In the present study, the event-related potential and event-related spectral perturbations techniques were used to measure the internal cost of spontaneous deception by having participants perform a sender-receiver task in which they decided whether to send deceptive messages to increase their payoff from the task. Several important main findings emerged from this study. We observed a reward positivity (RewP) after senders sent the message, suggesting an integration of reward with associated cost after response in our task. Furthermore, spontaneous deception decreased the amplitude of the RewP and power in the delta and beta bands, whereas it increased the amplitude of power in the theta band, indicating that deception carried an internal cost that devalued individuals' rewards.
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.