Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

By Daniel L. Schacter, Elizabeth F. Loftus. 2013

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A recent decision in the United States by the New Jersey Supreme Court has led to improved jury instructions that incorporate psychological research showing that memory does not operate like a video recording. Here we consider how cognitive neuroscience could contribute to addressing memory in the courtroom. We discuss conditions in which neuroimaging can distinguish true and false memories in the laboratory and note reasons to be skeptical about its use in courtroom cases. We also discuss neuroscience research concerning false and imagined memories, misinformation effects and reconsolidation phenomena that may enhance understanding of why memory does not operate like a video recording.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

  1. Sheena A. Josselyn
  2. Y. Dudai
  3. S. Tonegawa
  4. Jan Born
  5. Paul W. Frankland
  6. Morris Moscovitch
  7. Gordon Winocur
  8. Loren M. Frank

In Social Psychology

  1. Sheena A. Josselyn
  2. S. Tonegawa
  3. Y. Dudai

Citations in the corpus