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.
23. Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Memon A; Hope L; Bull R Br J Psychol; 2003 Aug; 94(Pt 3):339-54. PubMed ID: 14511547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification impairs memory for the culprit. Smalarz L; Wells GL Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):283-92. PubMed ID: 24707912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Error positivity is related to attentional control of task switching. Tanaka H Neuroreport; 2009 May; 20(8):820-4. PubMed ID: 19384255 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Event-related brain potentials during the standard autonomic-based concealed information test. Matsuda I; Nittono H; Hirota A; Ogawa T; Takasawa N Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Oct; 74(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 19631702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The processes leading to deception: ERP spatiotemporal principal component analysis and source analysis. Sun SY; Mai X; Liu C; Liu JY; Luo YJ Soc Neurosci; 2011; 6(4):348-59. PubMed ID: 21225491 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Identifying the bad guy in a lineup using confidence judgments under deadline pressure. Brewer N; Weber N; Wootton D; Lindsay DS Psychol Sci; 2012 Oct; 23(10):1208-14. PubMed ID: 22933457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effects of perceived reliability and generalization of crime-related information on detection in the concealed information test. Elaad E Int J Psychophysiol; 2010 Mar; 75(3):295-303. PubMed ID: 20093151 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Identifying deliberate attempts to fake memory impairment through the combined use of reaction time and event-related potential measures. van Hooff JC; Sargeant E; Foster JK; Schmand BA Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Sep; 73(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 19374924 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Brewer N; Caon A; Todd C; Weber N Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):31-50. PubMed ID: 16729207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Identifying concealment-related responses in the concealed information test. Matsuda I; Nittono H; Ogawa T Psychophysiology; 2013 Jul; 50(7):617-26. PubMed ID: 23560794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Detection of deception about multiple, concealed, mock crime items, based on a spatial-temporal analysis of ERP amplitude and scalp distribution. Lui M; Rosenfeld JP Psychophysiology; 2008 Sep; 45(5):721-30. PubMed ID: 18665865 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Regularities in eyewitness identification. Clark SE; Howell RT; Davey SL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):187-218. PubMed ID: 17410411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Children's identification of faces from lineups: the effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Beresford J; Blades M J Appl Psychol; 2006 Sep; 91(5):1102-13. PubMed ID: 16953771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Steblay NK; Dietrich HL; Ryan SL; Raczynski JL; James KA Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):262-74. PubMed ID: 20632113 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Eyewitness lineups: is the appearance-change instruction a good idea? Charman SD; Wells GL Law Hum Behav; 2007 Feb; 31(1):3-22. PubMed ID: 16612580 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Clark SE Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):575-604. PubMed ID: 16254744 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Detecting concealed information using feedback related event-related brain potentials. Sai L; Lin X; Hu X; Fu G Brain Cogn; 2014 Oct; 90():142-50. PubMed ID: 25058495 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]