ReviewPsychophysiology2023
A new theoretical perspective on concealed information detection.
Review in Psychophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating eye-tracking as a method for deception detection against the polygraph as deployed in practice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The concealed information test with a continuously moving stimulus.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Fast & furious: Rejecting the hypothesis that secondary psychopathy improves reaction time-based concealed information detection.PloS one · 2024Article
- The role of response conflict in concealed information detection with reaction times.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A new theoretical perspective on concealed information detection.Psychophysiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concealed information test (CIT) was designed to detect concealed knowledge. It does so by measuring differential physiological and behavioral responses to concealed, compared to control, items - i.e., the CIT effect. Although the CIT has gained extensive empirical support in laboratory studies, scientific validity requires also a theoretical understanding of the method's underlying mechanisms. In this article, we present a new theoretical perspective. Specifically, we elaborate and clarify several features of Orienting Response (OR) theory, which has been the dominant theory in this domain. Importantly, we suggest for the first time that the voluntary (rather than the involuntary) OR modulates the CIT effect. Second, we argue that motivational-emotional accounts of the CIT effect are consistent with OR theory and cannot be considered as alternative approaches. Finally, we discuss some more recent developments which highlight the idea that different physiological measures reflect different underlying mechanisms - an idea dubbed as response fractionation.
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.