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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Does the inferior frontal sulcus play a functional role in deception? A neuronavigated theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00284 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno Verschuere, Teresa Schuhmann, Alexander T. Sack |
| Abstract |
By definition, lying involves withholding the truth. Response inhibition may therefore be the cognitive function at the heart of deception. Neuroimaging research has shown that the same brain region that is activated during response inhibition tasks, namely the inferior frontal region, is also activated during deception paradigms. This led to the hypothesis that the inferior frontal region is the neural substrate critically involved in withholding the truth. In the present study, we critically examine the functional necessity of the inferior frontal region in withholding the truth during deception. We experimentally manipulated the neural activity level in right inferior frontal sulcus (IFS) by means of neuronavigated continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS). Individual structural magnetic resonance brain images (MRI) were used to allow precise stimulation in each participant. Twenty-six participants answered autobiographical questions truthfully or deceptively before and after sham and real cTBS. Deception was reliably associated with more errors, longer and more variable response times than truth telling. Despite the potential role of IFS in deception as suggested by neuroimaging data, the cTBS-induced disruption of right IFS did not affect response times or error rates, when compared to sham stimulation. The present findings do not support the hypothesis that the right IFS is critically involved in deception. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Serbia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 29 | 40% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,174,562
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,112
of 7,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,825
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#140
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 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 52% of its contemporaries.