Cited by 61Deception detection and forensic psychologyFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Decoding the processing of lying using functional connectivity MRI

Open access
Jiang, Weixiong, Liu, Huasheng, Zeng, Lingli, Liao, Jian, Shen, Hui, Luo, Aijing, Hu, Dewen, Wang, Wei·2015·Behavioral and Brain Functions

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous functional MRI (fMRI) studies have demonstrated group differences in brain activity between deceptive and honest responses. The functional connectivity network related to lie-telling remains largely uncharacterized. METHODS: In this study, we designed a lie-telling experiment that emphasized strategy devising. Thirty-two subjects underwent fMRI while responding to questions in a truthful, inverse, or deceitful manner. For each subject, whole-brain functional connectivity networks were constructed from correlations among brain regions for the lie-telling and truth-telling conditions. Then, a multivariate pattern analysis approach was used to distinguish lie-telling from truth-telling based on the functional connectivity networks. RESULTS: The classification results demonstrated that lie-telling could be differentiated from truth-telling with an accuracy of 82.81% (85.94% for lie-telling, 79.69% for truth-telling). The connectivities related to the fronto-parietal networks, cerebellum and cingulo-opercular networks are most discriminating, implying crucial roles for these three networks in the processing of deception. CONCLUSIONS: The current study may shed new light on the neural pattern of deception from a functional integration viewpoint.

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 · 10.1186/s12993-014-0046-4

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Increased cognitive load can result in differential verbal behaviours between liars and truthtellers.

    “Increased cognitive load in such circumstances (e.g., Bhatt et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2015) can result in differential verbal behaviours between liars and truthtellers.”

    From Sorting Insiders From Co-Workers: Remote Synchronous Computer-Mediated Triage for Investigating Insider Attacks (2024) · cites this paper as Jiang et al., 2015

    The Discussion (Deception-modulated network; page unavailable) links lying to greater cognitive load, and the Results (Behavioral data; page unavailable) report longer reaction times for lying than truth-telling. But participants responded by button press, not verbally, and the study did not test whether increasing cognitive load causes differences in verbal behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiang, W., Liu, H., Zeng, L., Liao, J., Shen, H., Luo, A., Hu, D., & Wang, W.
Affiliations
  • Central South University (CN)
  • National University of Defense Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Hu, Dewen
  • Wang, Wei
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Functions
Published
2015-01-17
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
1744-9081 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965695782
Cited by
61
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Functions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (13B013, 61375111, 61420106001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
deception, lying, deception detection, functional connectivity networks, frontoparietal network, cerebellum, cingulo-opercular network, truth-telling, deception strategies
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Cerebellum, Female, Frontal Lobe, Generalization, Psychological, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Deception, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Parietal Lobe, Reaction Time, Young Adult

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