Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study

By Daniel D. Langleben, L. Schroeder, J. Maldjian, Ruben C. Gur, S. McDonald, John Daniel Ragland, Charles P. O'Brien, Anna Rose Childress. NeuroImage, 2002

430 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/432dc627ba321f5df3fe163c5903b58e0527ad7a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Leanne ten Brinke
2. S. Porter
3. Cameron S. Carter
4. Yves Rosseel
5. Vincent van Veen
6. Bruno Verschuere

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Vincent van Veen
2. Cameron S. Carter
3. Dinggang Shen
4. Yong Fan
5. Christos Davatzikos
6. Ruben C. Gur
7. Kosha Ruparel
8. A. Bailey

In Social Psychology

1. Leanne ten Brinke
2. S. Porter
3. A. Bailey
4. Yves Rosseel
5. Sarah J. Carrington
6. Bruno Verschuere
7. B. Korkmaz

Citations in the corpus

• The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception? (2010, background): “The general picture emerging from the early work is that deceptive knowledge is associated with increased prefrontal, parietal, and anterior cingulate cortex activation (Langleben et al., 2002; Spence et al., 2004).”
• Are there theory of mind regions in the brain? A review of the neuroimaging literature (2009, result): “The activations in frontal regions were consistent with previous imaging studies in which participants were asked to answer the same questions both truthfully and falsely [Langleben et al., 2002; Spence et al., 2001], although Spence et al. reported a more lateral focus of activation.”
• Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection (2005, methodology): “…multi-subject average group data, several recent fMRI studies demonstrated differences in brain activation between truthful and non-truthful responses in various experimental paradigms (Langleben et al., 2002; Langleben et al., in press; Ganis et al., 2003; Kozel et al., 2004a,b; Lee et al., 2002).”
• Detecting concealed information with reaction times: Validity and comparison with the polygraph (2010, background): “Researchers are investigating the validity of several other autonomic nervous system measures (Elaad & Ben-Shakhar, 2006; Vandenbosch, Verschuere, Crombez, & De Clercq, 2008) as well as central nervous system measures (Farwell & Donchin, 1991; Langleben et al., 2002).”
• The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies. (2002, positive): “However, a recent fMRI study using a ‘‘guilty knowledge’’ task observed strong ACC activation during ‘‘lies’’ [24].”