Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36831859›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

Analysing Deception in Witness Memory through Linguistic Styles in Spontaneous Language.

Sara Solà-Sales, Chiara Alzetta, Carmen Moret-Tatay, Felice Dell'Orletta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara Solà-SalesDoctoral School, Catholic University of Valencia San Vicente Mártir, San Agustín 3, Esc. A, Entresuelo 1, 46002 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1365-6650
Chiara AlzettaItaliaNLP Lab, CNR-Institute for Computational Linguistics "A. Zampolli", Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7850-9611
Carmen Moret-TatayMEB Lab, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, 14600 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2867-9399
Felice Dell'OrlettaItaliaNLP Lab, CNR-Institute for Computational Linguistics "A. Zampolli", Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3454-9387
Institute for Computational Linguistics “A. Zampolli” · ITUniversitat de València · ESValencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr · ES

Funding

Becas para la realización de estancias en el extranjero by the Doctoral School of the Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir 2022Conselleria de Innovación, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad Digital proyecto emergente number: CIGE/2021/051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The act of lying and its detection have raised interest in many fields, from the legal system to our daily lives. Considering that testimonies are commonly based on linguistic parameters, natural language processing, a research field concerned with programming computers to process and analyse natural language texts or speech, is a topic of interest on this front. This study aimed to examine the linguistic styles of simulated deception and true testimonies collected with the aim of studying witness memory. Study participants were asked to act as a witness of a crime by retelling the story they had just read. Cognitive interviewing techniques were used to collect testimony under two conditions: truth and simulated deception. A sample of 48 participants volunteered to participate in the study. Analyses of the linguistic indicators and content were carried out. Specifically, we performed a comparison of testimonies of the same participant by condition to analyse the variation between (i) lexical and (ii) linguistic features and (iii) content and speech characteristics (disfluencies) depending on the narrative condition. Concerning lexical properties, adjectives were the most-varying grammatical category between truthful and deceptive testimonies. Furthermore, in the linguistic analysis, we observed that truthful testimonies were generally longer than deceptive ones in terms of the number of words and sentences and also characterised by more articulated sentence structures, and these differences were also statistically significant. Regarding the analysis of the content, cognitive criteria (details) and admitting lack of memory were more present in truthful statements. By providing an objective measure, these results are of interest in developing NLP tools for assessing the credibility of testimonies in forensics.

Indexed as

content analysislinguistic cuesnatural language processingsimulated deceptionwitnesses

Identifiers

PMID36831859
PMCPMC9953826
OpenAlexW4320490910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.