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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38806588)

  • 1. Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions.
    Melis G; Ursino M; Scarpazza C; Zangrossi A; Sartori G
    Sci Rep; 2024 May; 14(1):12268. PubMed ID: 38806588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying deceptive hazard evaluation: An event-related potentials investigation.
    Fu H; Qiu W; Ma H; Ma Q
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0182892. PubMed ID: 28793344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and mouse dynamics.
    Monaro M; Gamberini L; Sartori G
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(5):e0177851. PubMed ID: 28542248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Detecting true and false opinions: The Devil's Advocate approach as a lie detection aid.
    Leal S; Vrij A; Mann S; Fisher RP
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Jul; 134(3):323-9. PubMed ID: 20398882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Jumping the gun: Faster response latencies to deceptive questions in a realistic scenario.
    Mapala T; Warmelink L; Linkenauger SA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Aug; 24(4):1350-1358. PubMed ID: 28290127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Resting-state Functional Connectivity and Deception: Exploring Individualized Deceptive Propensity by Machine Learning.
    Tang H; Lu X; Cui Z; Feng C; Lin Q; Cui X; Su S; Liu C
    Neuroscience; 2018 Dec; 395():101-112. PubMed ID: 30394323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The use-the-best heuristic facilitates deception detection.
    Verschuere B; Lin CC; Huismann S; Kleinberg B; Willemse M; Mei ECJ; van Goor T; Löwy LHS; Appiah OK; Meijer E
    Nat Hum Behav; 2023 May; 7(5):718-728. PubMed ID: 36941469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Using reality monitoring to improve deception detection in the context of the cognitive interview for suspects.
    Logue M; Book AS; Frosina P; Huizinga T; Amos S
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Aug; 39(4):360-7. PubMed ID: 25844516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does willingness affect the N2-P3 effect of deceptive and honest responses?
    Wu H; Hu X; Fu G
    Neurosci Lett; 2009 Dec; 467(2):63-6. PubMed ID: 19818837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI.
    Langleben DD; Loughead JW; Bilker WB; Ruparel K; Childress AR; Busch SI; Gur RC
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2005 Dec; 26(4):262-72. PubMed ID: 16161128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Differential effects of practice on the executive processes used for truthful and deceptive responses: an event-related brain potential study.
    Johnson R; Barnhardt J; Zhu J
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Aug; 24(3):386-404. PubMed ID: 16099352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Can you catch a liar? How negative emotions affect brain responses when lying or telling the truth.
    Proverbio AM; Vanutelli ME; Adorni R
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(3):e59383. PubMed ID: 23536874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate hemodynamic responses to deception in the prefrontal cortex.
    Tian F; Sharma V; Kozel FA; Liu H
    Brain Res; 2009 Dec; 1303():120-30. PubMed ID: 19782657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Hemispheric asymmetry and deception detection.
    Malcolm S; Paul Keenan J
    Laterality; 2005 Mar; 10(2):103-10. PubMed ID: 15849029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding.
    Johnson R; Barnhardt J; Zhu J
    Neuropsychologia; 2004; 42(7):878-901. PubMed ID: 14998703
    [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 9.