↓ Skip to main content

Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Lying about the Valence of Affective Pictures: An fMRI Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0012291
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatia M. C. Lee, Tiffany M. Y. Lee, Adrian Raine, Chetwyn C. H. Chan

Abstract

The neural correlates of lying about affective information were studied using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) methodology. Specifically, 13 healthy right-handed Chinese men were instructed to lie about the valence, positive or negative, of pictures selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) while their brain activity was scanned by a 3T Philip Achieva scanner. The key finding is that the neural activity associated with deception is valence-related. Comparing to telling the truth, deception about the valence of the affectively positive pictures was associated with activity in the inferior frontal, cingulate, inferior parietal, precuneus, and middle temporal regions. Lying about the valence of the affectively negative pictures, on the other hand, was associated with activity in the orbital and medial frontal regions. While a clear valence-related effect on deception was observed, common neural regions were also recruited for the process of deception about the valence of the affective pictures. These regions included the lateral prefrontal and inferior parietal regions. Activity in these regions has been widely reported in fMRI studies on deception using affectively-neutral stimuli. The findings of this study reveal the effect of valence on the neural activity associated with deception. Furthermore, the data also help to illustrate the complexity of the neural mechanisms underlying deception.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 98 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 46%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 September 2010.
All research outputs
#4,536,144
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#61,952
of 193,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,208
of 93,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#287
of 820 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 93,673 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 820 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 65% of its contemporaries.