2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105704
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural correlates of spontaneous deception in a non-competitive interpersonal scenario: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to previous studies on spontaneous deception 5,18,69,71,72 , the naturalistic nature of the task caused an imbalance in the number of trials for both the reputation and no reputation conditions; e.g., participants who always chose other-gain truths instead of self-gain lies or vice versa. This meant that some participants had to be excluded due to an insufficient number of trials.…”
Section: Fmri General Linear Model Analysesmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Similar to previous studies on spontaneous deception 5,18,69,71,72 , the naturalistic nature of the task caused an imbalance in the number of trials for both the reputation and no reputation conditions; e.g., participants who always chose other-gain truths instead of self-gain lies or vice versa. This meant that some participants had to be excluded due to an insufficient number of trials.…”
Section: Fmri General Linear Model Analysesmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…This conforms with a large meta-analysis of fMRI studies which also found that deception, whether instructed or spontaneous, increased PFC activity, especially in the left and right DLPFC ( Yu et al, 2019 ). fNIRS has yielded similar results ( Ding et al, 2013 , 2014 ) and very recently Lin et al (2021) used fNIRS to measure cortical activity in the DLPFC and the APFC while participants lied while playing a poker game with an opponent. Both prefrontal areas were more active when participants lied versus when they told the truth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…This may indicate that our low-stakes deception task, in which participants were instructed to lie about remembering words on a list, does not produce the same level of cognitive processing required of intentional face-to-face deception. Indeed, Lin et al (2021) report that in their poker game study, deliberate spontaneous deception produces higher activity in both the DLPFC and APFC than when participants are merely told to lie. In a similar recent fNIRS study with card players that focused exclusively on the APFC, the highest levels of activity occurred only in intentional face-to-face deception ( Pinti et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The general linear model (GLM) is used in many fNIRS studies [ 36 , 37 ]. After preprocessing, we applied GLM to implement an individual-level analysis channel by channel [ 38 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%