↓ Skip to main content

Decoding the processing of lying using functional connectivity MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decoding the processing of lying using functional connectivity MRI
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12993-014-0046-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weixiong Jiang, Huasheng Liu, Lingli Zeng, Jian Liao, Hui Shen, Aijing Luo, Dewen Hu, Wei Wang

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious functional MRI (fMRI) studies have demonstrated group differences in brain activity between deceptive and honest responses. The functional connectivity network related to lie-telling remains largely uncharacterized.MethodsIn this study, we designed a lie-telling experiment that emphasized strategy devising. Thirty-two subjects underwent fMRI while responding to questions in a truthful, inverse, or deceitful manner. For each subject, whole-brain functional connectivity networks were constructed from correlations among brain regions for the lie-telling and truth-telling conditions. Then, a multivariate pattern analysis approach was used to distinguish lie-telling from truth-telling based on the functional connectivity networks.ResultsThe classification results demonstrated that lie-telling could be differentiated from truth-telling with an accuracy of 82.81% (85.94% for lie-telling, 79.69% for truth-telling). The connectivities related to the fronto-parietal networks, cerebellum and cingulo-opercular networks are most discriminating, implying crucial roles for these three networks in the processing of deception.ConclusionsThe current study may shed new light on the neural pattern of deception from a functional integration viewpoint.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 6%
Russia 1 1%
Slovakia 1 1%
Unknown 73 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 24%
Neuroscience 12 15%
Computer Science 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,035,636
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#98
of 391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,992
of 352,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.