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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26379610)

  • 41. Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews.
    Caso L; Palena N; Carlessi E; Vrij A
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2019; 26(6):841-850. PubMed ID: 32128012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. How deception and believability feedback affect recall.
    Vo TVA; Gunderson CA; Ten Brinke L
    Memory; 2022 Jul; 30(6):706-714. PubMed ID: 33557706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior.
    Vrij A; Fisher RP
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():1377. PubMed ID: 32625154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Confidence Can Be Used to Discriminate Between Accurate and Inaccurate Lie Decisions.
    Smith AM; Leach AM
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2019 Nov; 14(6):1062-1071. PubMed ID: 31539484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews.
    Parkhouse T; Ormerod TC
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(12):e0208751. PubMed ID: 30532180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: The model statement technique and predictive modeling.
    Kleinberg B; van der Toolen Y; Vrij A; Arntz A; Verschuere B
    Appl Cogn Psychol; 2018; 32(3):354-366. PubMed ID: 29861544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The effects of a model statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.
    Deeb H; Vrij A; Leal S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2020 Jun; 207():103080. PubMed ID: 32413731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. How humans impair automated deception detection performance.
    Kleinberg B; Verschuere B
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Feb; 213():103250. PubMed ID: 33450692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception.
    Hauch V; Blandón-Gitlin I; Masip J; Sporer SL
    Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 2015 Nov; 19(4):307-42. PubMed ID: 25387767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Interview based connectivity analysis of EEG in order to detect deception.
    Daneshi Kohan M; Motie Nasrabadi A; Sharifi A; Bagher Shamsollahi M
    Med Hypotheses; 2020 Mar; 136():109517. PubMed ID: 31835208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. "Intuitive" lie detection of children's deception by law enforcement officials and university students.
    Leach AM; Talwar V; Lee K; Bala N; Lindsay RC
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Dec; 28(6):661-85. PubMed ID: 15732652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A truth that's told with bad intent: an ERP study of deception.
    Carrión RE; Keenan JP; Sebanz N
    Cognition; 2010 Jan; 114(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 19836013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Do liars really remember what they lied upon? The impact of fabrication on memory.
    Battista F; Mangiulli I; Riesthuis P; Curci A; Otgaar H
    Memory; 2021 Sep; 29(8):1076-1090. PubMed ID: 34339348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Deception detection: interrogators' and observers' decoding of consecutive statements.
    Granhag PA; Strömwall LA
    J Psychol; 2001 Nov; 135(6):603-20. PubMed ID: 11931002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Applying the verifiability approach to deception detection in alibi witness situations.
    Vernham Z; Vrij A; Nahari G; Leal S; Mann S; Satchell L; Orthey R
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2020 Mar; 204():103020. PubMed ID: 32014621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful than Truth-Telling? A Baker's Dozen of Moderators.
    Burgoon JK
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1965. PubMed ID: 26733932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Face-to-Face Lying: Gender and Motivation to Deceive.
    Elaad E; Gonen-Gal Y
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():820923. PubMed ID: 35391990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews.
    Vrij A; Leal S; Mann S; Dalton G; Jo E; Shaboltas A; Khaleeva M; Granskaya J; Houston K
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jun; 177():44-53. PubMed ID: 28477454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Amplifying deceivers' flawed metacognition: Encouraging disclosures after delays with a model statement.
    Harvey AC; Vrij A; Leal S; Hope L; Mann S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Sep; 200():102935. PubMed ID: 31715443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Interviewing Suspects with Avatars: Avatars Are More Effective When Perceived as Human.
    Ströfer S; Ufkes EG; Bruijnes M; Giebels E; Noordzij ML
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():545. PubMed ID: 27148150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.