Cited by 188Memory Processes and InfluencesDeception detection and forensic psychologyJury Decision Making Processes

Memory and law: what can cognitive neuroscience contribute?

Open access
Schacter, Daniel L, Loftus, Elizabeth F·2013·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

A recent decision in the United States by the New Jersey Supreme Court has led to improved jury instructions that incorporate psychological research showing that memory does not operate like a video recording. Here we consider how cognitive neuroscience could contribute to addressing memory in the courtroom. We discuss conditions in which neuroimaging can distinguish true and false memories in the laboratory and note reasons to be skeptical about its use in courtroom cases. We also discuss neuroscience research concerning false and imagined memories, misinformation effects and reconsolidation phenomena that may enhance understanding of why memory does not operate like a video recording.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3294

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The current study reveals neural mechanisms that support the formation of false memories for naturalistic events experienced in a real-world setting.

    “The current study reveals neural mechanisms that support the formation of false memories for naturalistic events experienced in a real-world setting, which has important implications for eyewitness memory and the law (92, 93).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schacter, D. L., & Loftus, E. F.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Schacter, Daniel L
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2013-01-28
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
119-123
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2011120393
Cited by
188
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
Keywords
jury instructions, false memory, neuroimaging of memory, misinformation effect, memory reconsolidation, eyewitness memory
MeSH terms
Brain, Cognition, Humans, Memory, Neurosciences, Research

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