ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
Distinguishing deception from its confounds by improving the validity of fMRI-based neural prediction.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. 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.
- Psychophysiological and Neurobiological Responses to Deception and Emotional Stimuli: A Pilot Study on the Interplay of Personality Traits and Perceived Stress.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Neurocomputational mechanisms of personal benefits and justifications in moral decision-making.Communications biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deception is a universal human behavior. Yet longstanding skepticism about the validity of measures used to characterize the biological mechanisms underlying deceptive behavior has relegated such studies to the scientific periphery. Here, we address these fundamental questions by applying machine learning methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to signaling games capturing motivated deception in human participants. First, we develop an approach to test for the presence of confounding processes and validate past skepticism by showing that much of the predictive power of neural predictors trained on deception data comes from processes other than deception. Specifically, we demonstrate that discriminant validity is compromised by the predictor's ability to predict behavior in a control task that does not involve deception. Second, we show that the presence of confounding signals need not be fatal and that the validity of the neural predictor can be improved by removing confounding signals while retaining those associated with the task of interest. To this end, we develop a "dual-goal tuning" approach in which, beyond the typical goal of predicting the behavior of interest, the predictor also incorporates a second compulsory goal that enforces chance performance in the control task. Together, these findings provide a firmer scientific foundation for understanding the neural basis of a neglected class of behavior, and they suggest an approach for improving validity of neural predictors.
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.