The presentation order of cue and target matters in deception study

Guangheng Dong · Yanbo Hu · Qilin Lu · Haiyan Wu

55 citations0/0 files storedBehavioral and Brain Functions

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Deception detection and forensic psychology Memory Processes and Influences Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two experimental procedures (cue-target and target-cue) were used in studying the processes of deception. How the task will affect participants' performances is not clear. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the order of presentation of cue and target on the processes of deception. METHODS: A face evaluation task was employed to test and compare the order effect of the deception-indicating cue and the target stimulus in studying deception (i.e., which research procedure is more sensitive in distinguishing different experimental conditions and which is more likely to represent the deception process in daily life). Behavioral responses and event-related potentials (ERP) were recorded while participants made truthful and deceptive responses about their evaluation. RESULTS: Response-locked ERP showed that both deceptive conditions in cue-target and target-cue procedures elicited medial frontal negativities. However, the results in the ERP distribution regions, the ERP amplitudes and source estimation results were different in the two procedures. The cue-target procedure elicited a more negative ERP deflection between 40 ms and 90 ms over the central-frontal scalp regions than the target-cue procedures. Source localizations in cue-target were identified in three clusters, namely, medial frontal gyrus, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and ventral medial frontal gyrus. In the target-cue procedure, the sources were identified in the frontal areas. DISCUSSION: Different presenting orders of the cue and target stimuli induced different neural activities. Further, the cue-target procedure could represent the process of deception better than the target-cue procedure.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Action-Monitoring Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder 2001Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans 2005Detecting Deception Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2008Detecting deception: the scope and limits 2004The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding 1988Differentiation of Deception as a Psychological Process: A Psychophysiological Approach 2005Neural correlates of telling lies 2007The self in conflict: The role of executive processes during truthful and deceptive responses about attitudes

Cited by

2018Lying, Sincerity, and Quality 2018Lying, Belief, and Knowledge 2018Lying, Irony, and Default Interpretation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.