Neural mechanisms of deception in a social context: an fMRI replication study

Abstract

z www.nature.com/scientificreports/ zero. As no significance test is performed, no correction for multiple comparisons is required. Additionally, no effect size threshold is necessary to apply in the Bayesian approach 75. In the present study, a voxelwise analysis for pairs and groups of contrasts was performed using a zero effect size threshold (same as applied in the paper by Volz et al. (2015)) and a PPM threshold defined as log-odds threshold > 3. Xjview Toolbox (https ://www.alive learn .net/xjvie w/) was used to identify the anatomical location. Clusters lying within the TOM system were distinguished and labelled according to thresholded maps of seven TOM regions: the rTPJ and lTPJ, the precuneus, the dorsal, middle and ventral components of the medial prefrontal cortex, and the right STS 45 (downloaded at https ://saxel ab.mit.edu/use-our-theor y-mind-group-maps).

Collaborations and deceptions in strategic interactions revealed by hyperscanning fMRI

“…For example, one study (e.g., Yin & Weber, 2019), using the spontaneously lying strategy, incentivized by relatively high payoffs (honesty: $1, lying: $8, lying got caught: -$6) and low (probability = .2) caught-up rates, did not find the involvement of ToM network (see also Lisofsky et al, 2014, for meta-analysis results). Second, another mono-fMRI study (Volz et al, 2015;Zheltyakova, Kireev, Korotkov, & Medvedev, 2020), investigating lying in the social context through the inquiry of honest answers, and simple and sophisticated deceptions after each sender-receiver trial, did not find the executive/inhibition subnetwork in their GLM contrasts. Third, some recent fNIRS hyperscanning studies, through more naturalistic task designs (e.g., bluffing card game, and sender-receiver games) (Chen et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020;Zhang et al, 2017), revealed both ToM and inhibition subnetworks, but was unable to probe into reward-related network (e.g., caudate nucleus), due to the depth limitation of NIRS (Ferrari & Quaresima, 2012;Pinti et al, 2020).…”

Detecting spontaneous deception in the brain

“…All the included participants had more than two runs and the average success rate in following the given task instructions (to tell the truth/lie) was higher than 75% (Figure S2). In this study, the number of included participants is comparable with prior fMRI studies testing on deceptions (Bhatt et al, 2009;Ganis, Rosenfeld, Meixner, Kievit, & Schendan, 2011;Nuñez et al, 2005;Yin & Weber, 2019;Zheltyakova, Kireev, Korotkov, & Medvedev, 2020).…”

The Interaction Between Caudate Nucleus and Regions Within the Theory of Mind Network as a Neural Basis for Social Intelligence

“…A recent study showed a positive correlation between the level of self-consciousness and the GMV of the precuneus (Morita et al, 2021). This region has also been found to be associated with social-cognitive processes in the setting of deceptive behavior (Lisofsky et al, 2014;Volz et al, 2015;Kireev et al, 2017;Zheltyakova et al, 2020) as well as moral cognition (Fede and Kiehl, 2019). ToM can be fractioned into cognitive and affective domains; the cognitive domain is more likely to be included in the SI concept.…”