Cited by 155Memory Processes and InfluencesDeception detection and forensic psychologyCognitive Functions and Memory

The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom

Open access
Lacy, Joyce W., Stark, Craig E. L.·2013·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well encoded that they are effectively indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are almost certainly accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are partly driven by common misunderstandings about memory--for example, that memory is more veridical than it may actually be.

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 · 10.1038/nrn3563

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Loftus EF Eyewitness Testimony 1979 Harvard Cambridge
  2. [13]Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 38.20 2011
  3. [26]Dunlosky J Metcalfe J Metacognition 2009 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. L.
Affiliations
  • Azusa Pacific University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Stark, Craig E. L.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2013-08-14
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
649-658
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W2078472886
Cited by
155
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG034613)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
memory distortion, memory reconstruction, eyewitness memory, memory reliability, courtroom evidence, police interrogation, memory encoding, false memory
MeSH terms
Expert Testimony, Humans, Memory, Neurosciences, Public Opinion, Repression, Psychology, Social Values, United States, Police

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