ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Psychobiological Correlates of Instructed Deceptive Responding: An Exploratory EEG Study.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intentional deceptive responding under laboratory instructions provides an experimental model for investigating the cognitive mechanisms involved in producing false responses, although it does not fully capture the complexity of real-world deception. Although deception has important implications for social functioning and has been widely studied, identifying reliable indicators that cannot easily be concealed remains a major challenge. In the present study, we investigated frontal EEG activity during intentional instructed deception and examined its association with stress-related and affective traits. The study included 86 healthy adults (M age = 26.97 years, SD = 9.42) who completed standardized self-report measures assessing depression (BDI), anxiety (BAI), perceived stress (PSS), and everyday deceptive behavior (LiES). A subsample of 48 participants subsequently completed a controlled truth-deception task while EEG activity was recorded from frontal scalp electrodes, providing an indirect measure of frontal electrophysiological activity. Absolute spectral power was analyzed across beta, alpha, theta, and delta frequency bands. The findings indicated that anxiety was positively associated with self-reported deceptive behavior, whereas depression and perceived stress were not significantly related to deception tendencies. EEG analyses suggested an increase in right-frontal scalp theta power during instructed deceptive responding, particularly through significant modulation of theta activity in the right hemisphere; however, later multilevel analysis showed it is a rather less specific activation appearing irrespective of the hemisphere. The increase remained significant when relative power was analyzed, indicating that the finding was robust to normalization of spectral power. Together, these findings suggest that instructed deceptive responding was associated with changes in frontal EEG oscillatory activity that are broadly consistent with mechanisms previously linked to executive control and conflict monitoring; however, because recordings were obtained using a low-density consumer EEG device during overt verbal responding, these interpretations should be considered exploratory. In this view, our study investigates habitual deceptive tendencies with affective traits and state-dependent EEG modulation during instructed deception, and our results could contribute to the understanding of emotion-cognition interactions in decisions involving uncertainty, social evaluation, and strategic information control.
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.