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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16133950)

  • 41. Lie detection: historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions.
    Ford EB
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2006; 29(3):159-77. PubMed ID: 16516294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Suspects, lies, and videotape: an analysis of authentic high-stake liars.
    Mann S; Vrij A; Bull R
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):365-76. PubMed ID: 12061624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Stress and deception in speech: evaluating layered voice analysis.
    Harnsberger JD; Hollien H; Martin CA; Hollien KA
    J Forensic Sci; 2009 May; 54(3):642-50. PubMed ID: 19432740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Single-trial discrimination of truthful from deceptive responses during a game of financial risk using alpha-band MEG signals.
    Seth AK; Iversen JR; Edelman GM
    Neuroimage; 2006 Aug; 32(1):465-76. PubMed ID: 16678444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The role of intention to conceal in the P300-based concealed information test.
    Kubo K; Nittono H
    Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback; 2009 Sep; 34(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 19499325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Disclosing concealed information on the basis of cortical activations.
    Nose I; Murai J; Taira M
    Neuroimage; 2009 Feb; 44(4):1380-6. PubMed ID: 19059486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Assigned versus random, countermeasure-like responses in the p300 based complex trial protocol for detection of deception: task demand effects.
    Meixner JB; Haynes A; Winograd MR; Brown J; Peter Rosenfeld J
    Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback; 2009 Sep; 34(3):209-20. PubMed ID: 19543970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Lie Detection Using fNIRS Monitoring of Inhibition-Related Brain Regions Discriminates Infrequent but not Frequent Liars.
    Li F; Zhu H; Xu J; Gao Q; Guo H; Wu S; Li X; He S
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2018; 12():71. PubMed ID: 29593514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Are lies more wrong than errors? Accuracy judgments of inaccurate statements.
    Teigen KH; Filkuková P
    Scand J Psychol; 2011 Feb; 52(1):8-20. PubMed ID: 21054418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Detection of deception: Its application to forensic psychiatry.
    Lynch BE
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1979; 7(3):239-44. PubMed ID: 549695
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Detecting deception: the promise and the reality of voice stress analysis.
    Horvath F
    J Forensic Sci; 1982 Apr; 27(2):340-51. PubMed ID: 7047675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language.
    Law MKH; Jackson SA; Aidman E; Geiger M; Olderbak S; Kleitman S
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0196384. PubMed ID: 29723243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Partners under Pressure: Examining the Consistency of True and False Alibi Statements.
    Sakrisvold ML; Granhag PA; Mac Giolla E
    Behav Sci Law; 2017 Jan; 35(1):75-90. PubMed ID: 28247431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Comparison of polygraph data obtained from individuals involved in mock crimes and actual criminal investigations.
    Pollina DA; Dollins AB; Senter SM; Krapohl DJ; Ryan AH
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Dec; 89(6):1099-105. PubMed ID: 15584845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions.
    Abe N; Suzuki M; Mori E; Itoh M; Fujii T
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2007 Feb; 19(2):287-95. PubMed ID: 17280517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Snitching, lies and computer crashes: an experimental investigation of secondary confessions.
    Swanner JK; Beike DR; Cole AT
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Feb; 34(1):53-65. PubMed ID: 19277855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in Behavior Analysis Interviews.
    Horvath F; Jayne B; Buckley J
    J Forensic Sci; 1994 May; 39(3):793-807. PubMed ID: 8006624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A true denial or a false confession? Assessing veracity of suspects' statements using MASAM and SVA.
    Wojciechowski BW; Gräns M; Lidén M
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(6):e0198211. PubMed ID: 29856813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception.
    Lefebvre CD; Marchand Y; Smith SM; Connolly JF
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Sep; 73(3):218-25. PubMed ID: 19303425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.