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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34932410)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. '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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Analysing Deception in Witness Memory through Linguistic Styles in Spontaneous Language.
    Solà-Sales S; Alzetta C; Moret-Tatay C; Dell'Orletta F
    Brain Sci; 2023 Feb; 13(2):. PubMed ID: 36831859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Truth or lie: Exploring the language of deception.
    Sarzynska-Wawer J; Pawlak A; Szymanowska J; Hanusz K; Wawer A
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(2):e0281179. PubMed ID: 36730363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating Behavioral and Linguistic Changes During Drug Treatment for Depression Using Tweets in Spanish: Pairwise Comparison Study.
    Leis A; Ronzano F; Mayer MA; Furlong LI; Sanz F
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 Dec; 22(12):e20920. PubMed ID: 33337338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. "You can't kid a kidder": association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task.
    Wright GR; Berry CJ; Bird G
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2012; 6():87. PubMed ID: 22529790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Lessons From Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated.
    Luke TJ
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2019 Jul; 14(4):646-671. PubMed ID: 31173537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: the case of Diederik Stapel.
    Markowitz DM; Hancock JT
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e105937. PubMed ID: 25153333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of deception judgments.
    Bond CF; DePaulo BM
    Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 2006; 10(3):214-34. PubMed ID: 16859438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Markers of deception in italian speech.
    Spence K; Villar G; Arciuli J
    Front Psychol; 2012; 3():453. PubMed ID: 23162502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Resolution of grammatical tense into actual time, and its application in Time Perspective study in the tweet space.
    Kamila S; Hasanuzzaman M; Ekbal A; Bhattacharyya P
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0211872. PubMed ID: 30785900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.
    Bond CF; Depaulo BM
    Psychol Bull; 2008 Jul; 134(4):477-92. PubMed ID: 18605814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Subjective cues to deception/honesty in a high stakes situation: an exploratory approach.
    Wright Whelan C; Wagstaff GF; Wheatcroft JM
    J Psychol; 2015; 149(5):517-34. PubMed ID: 25975577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Deceptively simple … The "deception-general" ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight.
    Wright GR; Berry CJ; Bird G
    Front Neurosci; 2013 Aug; 7():152. PubMed ID: 24009549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How an Interest in Mindfulness Influences Linguistic Markers in Online Microblogging Discourse.
    Rivera CE; Kaunhoven RJ; Griffith GM
    Mindfulness (N Y); 2023; 14(4):818-829. PubMed ID: 37090855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.