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 *

221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28940300)

  • 1. Using Named Entities for Computer-Automated Verbal Deception Detection.
    Kleinberg B; Mozes M; Arntz A; Verschuere B
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 May; 63(3):714-723. PubMed ID: 28940300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The accuracy of auditors' and layered voice Analysis (LVA) operators' judgments of truth and deception during police questioning.
    Horvath F; McCloughan J; Weatherman D; Slowik S
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Mar; 58(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 23406506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations.
    Dunbar NE; Burgoon JK; Chen X; Wang X; Ge S; Huang Q; Nunamaker J
    Front Psychol; 2023; 14():1166225. PubMed ID: 37292506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is interactional dissynchrony a clue to deception? Insights from automated analysis of nonverbal visual cues.
    Yu X; Zhang S; Yan Z; Yang F; Huang J; Dunbar NE; Jensen ML; Burgoon JK; Metaxas DN
    IEEE Trans Cybern; 2015 Mar; 45(3):506-20. PubMed ID: 24988600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficacy of forensic statement analysis in distinguishing truthful from deceptive eyewitness accounts of highly stressful events.
    Morgan CA; Colwell K; Hazlett GA
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Sep; 56(5):1227-34. PubMed ID: 21854383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles.
    Vrij A; Mann S; Kristen S; Fisher RP
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Oct; 31(5):499-518. PubMed ID: 17211691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The reliability of lie detection performance.
    Leach AM; Lindsay RC; Koehler R; Beaudry JL; Bala NC; Lee K; Talwar V
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):96-109. PubMed ID: 18594955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 'Sleepy Joe' and 'Donald, King of Whoppers': Reality Monitoring and Verbal Deception in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Debates.
    Bond GD; Speller LF; Cockrell LL; Webb KG; Sievers JL
    Psychol Rep; 2023 Dec; 126(6):3090-3103. PubMed ID: 35634896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles.
    Newman ML; Pennebaker JW; Berry DS; Richards JM
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2003 May; 29(5):665-75. PubMed ID: 15272998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection.
    Kleinberg B; Arntz A; Verschuere B
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(8):e0220228. PubMed ID: 31393894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Personal Model of Trumpery: Linguistic Deception Detection in a Real-World High-Stakes Setting.
    Van Der Zee S; Poppe R; Havrileck A; Baillon A
    Psychol Sci; 2022 Jan; 33(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 34932410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component.
    Harvey AC; Vrij A; Leal S; Lafferty M; Nahari G
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Mar; 174():1-8. PubMed ID: 28088655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Time-domain analysis of EEG during Guilty Knowledge Test: investigation of epoch extraction criteria.
    Merzagora AC; Izzetoglu M; Bunce S; Onaral B
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():1302-5. PubMed ID: 18002202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of sketching while narrating on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.
    Deeb H; Vrij A; Leal S; Burkhardt J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Feb; 213():103236. PubMed ID: 33360343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. D3NER: biomedical named entity recognition using CRF-biLSTM improved with fine-tuned embeddings of various linguistic information.
    Dang TH; Le HQ; Nguyen TM; Vu ST
    Bioinformatics; 2018 Oct; 34(20):3539-3546. PubMed ID: 29718118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Chemical named entity recognition in patents by domain knowledge and unsupervised feature learning.
    Zhang Y; Xu J; Chen H; Wang J; Wu Y; Prakasam M; Xu H
    Database (Oxford); 2016; 2016():. PubMed ID: 27087307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Thirty-site P300 scalp distribution, amplitude variance across sites, and amplitude in detection of deceptive concealment of multiple guilty items.
    Lui MA; Rosenfeld JP; Ryan AH
    Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):491-509. PubMed ID: 18633836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.