CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Shifts Preference of Moral Judgments

Kuehne, Maria, Heimrath, Kai, Heinze, Hans-Jochen, Zaehle, Tino·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0127061PMC PMC4436128
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0127061

Cites

4 of 4 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

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 difference between the findings of our study and the observations of Kuehne et al. (2015) may be due to the variety in experimental designs and the stimulation locations.

    “The difference between the findings of our study and the observations of the previous study may due to the variety in experimental designs and the stimulation locations.”

    From tDCS Over DLPFC Leads to Less Utilitarian Response in Moral-Personal Judgment (2018) · cites this paper as Kuehne et al. (2015)

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. R Adolphs, 2001, The neurobiology of social cognition, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 231, 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00202-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Prehn K, Wartenburger I, Mériau K, Scheibe C, Goodenough OR, Villringer A, et al. Individual differences in moral judgment competence influence neural correlates of socio-normative judgments. 2008. p. 33–46. · DOI
  3. RJ Blair, 2007, The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy, Trends in cognitive sciences, 11, 387, 10.1016/j.tics.2007.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  4. HR Heekeren, 2005, Influence of bodily harm on neural correlates of semantic and moral decision-making, Neuroimage, 24, 887, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.026 · DOI
  5. W Freeman, 1942, Prefrontal Lobotomy: The Surgical Relief of Mental Pain, Bull N Y Acad Med, 18, 794
  6. RJ Blair, 2003, Neurobiological basis of psychopathy, Br J Psychiatry, 182, 5, 10.1192/bjp.182.1.5 · DOI
  7. AL Glenn, 2009, The neural correlates of moral decision-making in psychopathy, Mol Psychiatry, 14, 5, 10.1038/mp.2008.104 · DOI
  8. AA Marsh, 2011, Reduced amygdala-orbitofrontal connectivity during moral judgments in youths with disruptive behavior disorders and psychopathic traits, Psychiatry Res, 194, 279, 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.07.008 · DOI
  9. J Moll, 2011, Impairment of prosocial sentiments is associated with frontopolar and septal damage in frontotemporal dementia, Neuroimage, 54, 1735, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.026 · DOI
  10. FG Woermann, 2000, Reduction of frontal neocortical grey matter associated with affective aggression in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: an objective voxel by voxel analysis of automatically segmented MRI, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 68, 162, 10.1136/jnnp.68.2.162 · DOI
  11. J Schaich Borg, 2006, Consequences, Action, and Intention as Factors in Moral Judgments: An fMRI Investigation, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 803, 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.803 · DOI · Paper page
  12. JF Christensen, 2012, Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1249, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008 · DOI
  13. P Foot, 1967, The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect, Oxford Review, 5, 5
  14. JJ Thomson, 1985, The Trolley Problem, The Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395, 10.2307/796133 · DOI
  15. JD Greene, 2007, Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains, Trends in cognitive sciences, 11, 322, 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004 · DOI · Paper page
  16. JD Greene, 2001, An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment, Science, 293, 2105, 10.1126/science.1062872 · DOI · Paper page
  17. JD Greene, 2004, The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment, Neuron, 44, 389, 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 · DOI · Paper page
  18. D Fox, 2011, Neuroscience: Brain buzz, Nature, 472, 156, 10.1038/472156a · DOI
  19. B Luber, 2009, Non-invasive brain stimulation in the of deception: scientific challenges and ethical consequences, Behav Sci Law, 27, 191, 10.1002/bsl.860 · DOI
  20. R Cohen Kadosh, 2012, The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation, Curr Biol, 22, R108, 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.013 · DOI
  21. KS Utz, 2010, Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology—a review of current data and future implications, Neuropsychologia, 48, 2789, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.002 · DOI
  22. L Young, 2010, Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 107, 6753, 10.1073/pnas.0914826107 · DOI · Paper page
  23. S Tassy, 2012, Disrupting the right prefrontal cortex alters moral judgement, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 7, 282, 10.1093/scan/nsr008 · DOI · Paper page
  24. AG Sanfey, 2003, The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game, Science, 300, 1755, 10.1126/science.1082976 · DOI · Paper page
  25. RE Passingham, 2010, Medial frontal cortex: from self-generated action to reflection on one's own performance, Trends in cognitive sciences, 14, 16, 10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Chen JC, Hämmerer D, Strigaro G, Liou LM, Tsai CH, Rothwell JC, et al. Domain-specific suppression of auditory mismatch negativity with transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2013. · DOI
  27. T Zaehle, 2011, Excitability changes induced in the human auditory cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence, Experimental brain research, 215, 135, 10.1007/s00221-011-2879-5 · DOI
  28. L Jacobson, 2012, tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review, Experimental brain research, 216, 1, 10.1007/s00221-011-2891-9 · DOI · Paper page
  29. K Heimrath, 2014, Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) traces the predominance of the left auditory cortex for processing of rapidly changing acoustic information, Neuroscience, 261, 68, 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.031 · DOI
  30. K Monte-Silva, 2009, Dose-dependent inverted U-shaped effect of dopamine (D2-like) receptor activation on focal and nonfocal plasticity in humans, The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 29, 6124, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0728-09.2009 · DOI
  31. B Krause, 2013, The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation: a role for cortical excitation/inhibition balance?, Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 602, 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00602 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kuehne, M., Heimrath, K., Heinze, H.-J., & Zaehle, T.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-05-18
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e0127061
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0127061
PMC
PMC4436128
Cited by
45
References
4
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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