ArticleHuman brain mapping2020
Neural alignment during face-to-face spontaneous deception: Does gender make a difference?
Article in Human brain mapping, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal synchrony and spatial similarity of interbrain subnetworks predict dyadic social interaction.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Dyadic Neural Synchronization: Differences between Offline and Computer-assisted Online Verbal Interaction.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Frontal Delta Dissimilarity During Moral Persuasion: Insight from an EEG Hyperscanning Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Forewarned Is Forearmed: The Single- and Dual-Brain Mechanisms in Detectors from Dyads of Varying Social Distance during Deceptive Outcome Evaluation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Synchrony within, synchrony without: establishing the link between interpersonal behavioural and brain-to-brain synchrony during role-play.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Gender differences in cognitive and affective interpersonal emotion regulation in couples: an fNIRS hyperscanning.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
- Why people engage in corrupt collaboration: an observation at the multi-brain level.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Increased Interpersonal Brain Synchronization in Romantic Couples Is Associated with Higher Honesty: An fNIRS Hyperscanning Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Interpersonal Competition in Elderly Couples: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Hyperscanning Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Dual-MEG interbrain synchronization during turn-taking verbal interactions between mothers and children.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Hyperscanning fNIRS data analysis using multiregression dynamic models: an illustration in a violin duo.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2023Article
- Inter-brain neural mechanism underlying turn-based interaction under acute stress in women: a hyperscanning study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022Article
- Face-to-Face Lying: Gender and Motivation to Deceive.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Neural alignment during face-to-face spontaneous deception: Does gender make a difference?Human brain mapping · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the gender differences in deception and their neural basis in the perspective of two-person neuroscience. Both male and female dyads were asked to perform a face-to-face spontaneous sender-receiver deception task, while their neural activities in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and right temporal parietal junction (rTPJ) were recorded simultaneously using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)-based hyperscanning. Male and female dyads displayed similar deception rate, successful deception rate, and eye contact in deception trials. Moreover, eye contact in deception trials was positively correlated with the success rate of deception in both genders. The fNIRS data showed that the interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) in PFC was significantly enhanced only in female dyads when performed the deception task, while INS in rTPJ was increased only in male dyads. Such INS was correlated with the success rate of deception in both dyads. Granger causality analysis showed that no significant directionality between time series of PFC (or rTPJ) in each dyad, which could indicate that sender and receiver played equally important role during deception task. Finally, enhanced INS in PFC in female dyads mediated the contribution of eye contact to the success rate of deception. All findings in this study suggest that differential patterns of INS are recruited when male and female dyads perform the face-to-face deception task. To our knowledge, this is the first interbrain evidence for gender difference of successful deception, which could make us a deeper understanding of spontaneous face-to-face deception.
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.