↓ Skip to main content

Modulation of Untruthful Responses with Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
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 (78th 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
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Modulation of Untruthful Responses with Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00097
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shirley Fecteau, Paulo Boggio, Felipe Fregni, Alvaro Pascual-Leone

Abstract

Deceptive abilities have long been studied in relation to personality traits. More recently, studies explored the neural substrates associated with deceptive skills suggesting a critical role of the prefrontal cortex. Here we investigated whether non-invasive brain stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) could modulate generation of untruthful responses about subject's personal life across contexts (i.e., deceiving on guilt-free questions on daily activities; generating previously memorized lies about past experience; and producing spontaneous lies about past experience), as well as across modality responses (verbal and motor responses). Results reveal that real, but not sham, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the DLPFC can reduce response latency for untruthful over truthful answers across contexts and modality responses. Also, contexts of lies seem to incur a different hemispheric laterality. These findings add up to previous studies demonstrating that it is possible to modulate some processes involved in generation of untruthful answers by applying non-invasive brain stimulation over the DLPFC and extend these findings by showing a differential hemispheric contribution of DLPFCs according to contexts.

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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 31%
Neuroscience 17 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 August 2013.
All research outputs
#6,320,171
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,962
of 12,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,070
of 290,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#67
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 290,789 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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.