Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting deception: the scope and limits

Open access
Sip, Kamila E, Roepstorff, Andreas, McGregor, William, Frith, Chris D·2008·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With the increasing interest in the neuroimaging of deception and its commercial application, there is a need to pay more attention to methodology. The weakness of studying deception in an experimental setting has been discussed intensively for over half a century. However, even though much effort has been put into their development, paradigms are still inadequate. The problems that bedevilled the old technology have not been eliminated by the new. Advances will only be possible if experiments are designed that take account of the intentions of the subject and the context in which these occur.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Sip, K. E., Roepstorff, A., McGregor, W., & Frith, C. D.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
48-53
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008
OpenAlex
W2042425905
Cited by
267
References
10
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting deception: the scope and limits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008
The paper
Sip, K. E., Roepstorff, A., McGregor, W., & Frith, C. D. (2008). Detecting deception: the scope and limits. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.