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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 512193)

  • 1. Socialization, awareness, and the electrodermal response to deception and self-disclosure.
    Waid WM; Orne MT; Wilson SK
    J Abnorm Psychol; 1979 Dec; 88(6):663-6. PubMed ID: 512193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of level of socialization on electrodermal detection of deception.
    Waid WM; Orne MT; Wilson SK
    Psychophysiology; 1979 Jan; 16(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 758621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Individual differences in electrodermal lability and the detection of information and deception.
    Waid WM; Orne MT
    J Appl Psychol; 1980 Feb; 65(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 7364702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Can simultaneously acquired electrodermal activity improve accuracy of fMRI detection of deception?
    Kozel FA; Johnson KA; Laken SJ; Grenesko EL; Smith JA; Walker J; George MS
    Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):510-7. PubMed ID: 18633826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An experimental comparison of the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception.
    Horvath F
    J Appl Psychol; 1978 Jun; 63(3):338-44. PubMed ID: 690061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cross-modal physiological effects of electrodermal lability in the detection of deception.
    Waid WM; Wilson SK; Orne MT
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1981 Jun; 40(6):1118-25. PubMed ID: 7264879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Effect of visual feedback and application of skin potential response to detection of deception].
    Suzuki S; Watanabe T; Shimizu K
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 1969 Jun; 40(2):59-67. PubMed ID: 5818018
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Temperature effects on polygraph detection of concealed information.
    MacNeill AL; Bradley MT
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Feb; 53(2):143-50. PubMed ID: 26435532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Role playing versus deception: the ability of subjects to simulate self-report and physiological responses.
    Houston BK; Holmes DS
    J Soc Psychol; 1975 Jun; 96(First Half):91-8. PubMed ID: 1160373
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Meprobamate reduces accuracy of physiological detection of deception.
    Waid WM; Orne EC; Cook MR; Orne MT
    Science; 1981 Apr; 212(4490):71-3. PubMed ID: 7209522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Orienting versus inhibition in the Concealed Information Test: Different cognitive processes drive different physiological measures.
    klein Selle N; Verschuere B; Kindt M; Meijer E; Ben-Shakhar G
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Apr; 53(4):579-90. PubMed ID: 26615984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures.
    Bradley MT; Janisse MP
    Psychophysiology; 1981 May; 18(3):307-15. PubMed ID: 7291448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Differential responsiveness of two electrodermal indices to psychological stress and performance of a complex cognitive task.
    Kilpatrick DG
    Psychophysiology; 1972 Mar; 9(2):218-26. PubMed ID: 5024164
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The objective use of multiple physiological indices in the detection of deception.
    Cutrow RJ; Parks A; Lucas N; Thomas K
    Psychophysiology; 1972 Nov; 9(6):578-88. PubMed ID: 5076025
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The time of the crime: cognitively induced tonic arousal suppression when lying in a free recall context.
    Leal S; Vrij A; Fisher RP; van Hooff H
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 18504035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electrodermal responsivity to interrogation questions and its relation to self-reported emotional disturbance.
    Gudjonsson GH
    Biol Psychol; 1982; 14(3-4):213-8. PubMed ID: 7126718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychological stress evaluator--two tests of a vocal measure.
    Brenner M; Branscomb HH; Schwartz GE
    Psychophysiology; 1979 Jul; 16(4):351-7. PubMed ID: 461663
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of the type of stimulus employed and the level of subject awareness on the detection of deception.
    Thackray RI; Orne MT
    J Appl Psychol; 1968 Jun; 52(3):234-239. PubMed ID: 5659510
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of attention, as indexed by subsequent memory, on electrodermal detection of information.
    Waid WM; Orne EC; Cook MR; Orne MT
    J Appl Psychol; 1978 Dec; 63(6):728-33. PubMed ID: 730635
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Group GSR technique in the detection of deception.
    Orne MT; Thackray RI
    Percept Mot Skills; 1967 Dec; 25(3):809-16. PubMed ID: 6083301
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.