These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1399752)

  • 1. Electrodermal differentiation of deception: potentially confounding and influencing factors.
    Vincent A; Furedy JJ
    Int J Psychophysiol; 1992 Sep; 13(2):129-36. PubMed ID: 1399752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Psychophysiological differentiation of deception: the effects of electrodermal lability and mode of responding on skin conductance and heart rate.
    Gödert HW; Rill HG; Vossel G
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2001 Feb; 40(1):61-75. PubMed ID: 11166108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Electrodermal differentiation of deception: the effect of choice versus no choice of deceptive items.
    Furedy JJ; Gigliotti F; Ben-Shakhar G
    Int J Psychophysiol; 1994 Oct; 18(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 7876035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electrodermal differentiation of deception: perceived accuracy and perceived memorial content manipulations.
    Furedy JJ; Posner RT; Vincent A
    Int J Psychophysiol; 1991 Jul; 11(1):91-7. PubMed ID: 1856118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception.
    Pennebaker JW; Chew CH
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1985 Nov; 49(5):1427-33. PubMed ID: 4078683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge.
    Furedy JJ; Ben-Shakhar G
    Psychophysiology; 1991 Mar; 28(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 1946882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cross-modal physiological effects of electrodermal lability in the detection of deception.
    Waid WM; Wilson SK; Orne MT
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1981 Jun; 40(6):1118-25. PubMed ID: 7264879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differentiation of deception using pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing.
    Dionisio DP; Granholm E; Hillix WA; Perrine WF
    Psychophysiology; 2001 Mar; 38(2):205-11. PubMed ID: 11347866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions.
    Melis G; Ursino M; Scarpazza C; Zangrossi A; Sartori G
    Sci Rep; 2024 May; 14(1):12268. PubMed ID: 38806588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of deception on motor cortex excitability.
    Kelly KJ; Murray E; Barrios V; Gorman J; Ganis G; Keenan JP
    Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):570-4. PubMed ID: 18825589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Is the hypnotized subject lying?
    Kinnunen T; Zamansky HS; Block ML
    J Abnorm Psychol; 1994 May; 103(2):184-91. PubMed ID: 8040488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. To err is human but not deceptive.
    Walczyk JJ; Cockrell NF
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Jan; 50(1):232-244. PubMed ID: 34136972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Electrodermal activity in schizophrenia: a quantitative study using a short interstimulus paradigm.
    Lim CL; Gordon E; Harris A; Bahramali H; Li WM; Manor B; Rennie C
    Biol Psychiatry; 1999 Jan; 45(1):127-35. PubMed ID: 9894584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A Comparison of Deceptive and Non-Deceptive Placebo Analgesia: Efficacy and Ethical Consequences.
    Mundt JM; Roditi D; Robinson ME
    Ann Behav Med; 2017 Apr; 51(2):307-315. PubMed ID: 27995547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception.
    Horowitz SW; Kircher JC; Honts CR; Raskin DC
    Psychophysiology; 1997 Jan; 34(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 9009814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Can simultaneously acquired electrodermal activity improve accuracy of fMRI detection of deception?
    Kozel FA; Johnson KA; Laken SJ; Grenesko EL; Smith JA; Walker J; George MS
    Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):510-7. PubMed ID: 18633826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The correlations among the skin conductance features responding to physiological stress stimuli.
    Bari DS; Aldosky HYY; Tronstad C; Martinsen ØG
    Skin Res Technol; 2021 Jul; 27(4):582-588. PubMed ID: 33381876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Separating deceptive and orienting components in a Concealed Information Test.
    Ambach W; Stark R; Peper M; Vaitl D
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2008 Nov; 70(2):95-104. PubMed ID: 18674573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: a meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data.
    Meijer EH; klein Selle N; Elber L; Ben-Shakhar G
    Psychophysiology; 2014 Sep; 51(9):879-904. PubMed ID: 24916920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Orienting versus inhibition in the Concealed Information Test: Different cognitive processes drive different physiological measures.
    klein Selle N; Verschuere B; Kindt M; Meijer E; Ben-Shakhar G
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Apr; 53(4):579-90. PubMed ID: 26615984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.