↓ Skip to main content

“Have You Ever Seen This Face?” – Individual Differences and Event-Related Potentials during Deception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
“Have You Ever Seen This Face?” – Individual Differences and Event-Related Potentials during Deception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00570
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Leue, Sebastian Lange, André Beauducel

Abstract

Deception studies emphasize on the importance of event-related potentials (ERP) for a reliable differentiation of the underlying neuro-cognitive processes. The stimulus-locked parietal P3 amplitude has been shown to reflect stimulus salience but also attentional control available for stimulus processing. Known stimuli requiring truthful responses (targets) and known stimuli requiring deceptive responses (probes) were hypothesized to be more salient than unknown stimuli. Thus, a larger P3 was predicted for known truthful and deceptive stimuli than for unknown stimuli. The Medial Frontal Negativity (MFN) represents the amount of required cognitive control and was expected to be more negative to known truthful and deceptive stimuli than to unknown stimuli. Moreover, we expected higher sensitivity to injustice (SI-perpetrator) and aversiveness (Trait-BIS) to result in more intense neural processes during deception. N = 102 participants performed a deception task with three picture types: probes requiring deceptive responses, targets requiring truthful responses to known stimuli, and irrelevants being associated with truthful responses to unknown stimuli. Repeated-measures ANOVA and fixed-links modeling suggested a more positive parietal P3 and a more negative frontal MFN to deceptive vs. irrelevant stimuli. Trait-BIS and SI-perpetrator predicted an increase of the P3 and a decrease of the MFN from irrelevants to probes. This suggested an intensification of stimulus salience and cognitive control across picture types in individuals scoring either higher on Trait-BIS or higher on SI-perpetrator. In contrast, individuals with both higher Trait-BIS and higher SI-perpetrator scores showed a less negative probe-MFN suggesting that this subgroup invests less cognitive control to probes. By extending prior research we demonstrate that personality modulates stimulus salience and control processes during deception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Slovakia 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 55%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 January 2013.
All research outputs
#8,160,387
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,654
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,532
of 256,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#180
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 256,285 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 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 61% of its contemporaries.