The self in conflict: The role of executive processes during truthful and deceptive responses about attitudes

Neuroanatomical correlates of malingered memory impairment: Event-related fMRI of deception on a recognition memory task

“…DMPFC regions proximal to the anterior cingulate and supplementary motor area (SMA) are known for their role in mediating response conflict, inhibition, and complex motor planning. Similar deception-related response conflict processes have been observed in association with the medial frontal negativity (MFN) ERP component generated in this region [15]. Additionally, the observed association between reaction time increases during these malingered omissive errors and BOLD activity in the DMPFC suggests that this area may be one of the regions involved in the malingering-related reaction time increases noted by Vendemia et al [5] and Willison et al [6].…”

“…ERPs were first proposed for the detection of deceptive behavior in the mid-1980s [8,9], and since that time, numerous research efforts have examined aspects of the evoked response during covert deception. ERP components, such as the N400 [10], late positive parietal P300 [8,9,[11][12][13][14], and early medial frontal negativities (MFN) [15], have all demonstrated with some success the ability to distinguish neural signatures associated with the suppression of concealed knowledge. P300 indices of deception are posited to reflect automatic posterior parietal cortical activity associated with the prior visual recognition of presented stimuli; neural activity that is not as strongly elicited if an individual does not have prior recognition or knowledge of a crime-related stimulus [13].…”

“…P300 indices of deception are posited to reflect automatic posterior parietal cortical activity associated with the prior visual recognition of presented stimuli; neural activity that is not as strongly elicited if an individual does not have prior recognition or knowledge of a crime-related stimulus [13]. Similar reasoning is associated with deception-related changes in the N400 component [10]; whereas, larger MFN components have been linked to response monitoring and cognitive conflict present during deceptive behaviour [15].…”

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

“…Although initially attributed to error-detection (e.g., Coles et al, 2001), the discovery of a similar -albeit smaller -negative peak after correct responses challenged this view and led to the proposal that both components serve a more general conflict-monitoring function (Botvinick et al, 2001). Within deception research, it has been found that deceptive compared to truthful responding elicited a stronger CRN (also referred to as Medio-Frontal Negativity), which had been attributed to stronger response-monitoring demands for deceptive responses Johnson et al, 2004Johnson et al, , 2005Johnson et al, 2008;Kireev et al, 2008). Johnson et al (2004;2005) employed an old/new word paradigm, in which participants had to sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly indicate recognition of old words.…”

“…Johnson et al (2004;2005) employed an old/new word paradigm, in which participants had to sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly indicate recognition of old words. Johnson et al (2008) instructed participants to lie about their attitudes towards well-known persons. instructed participants to make honest or deceptive evaluations of the attractiveness of face stimuli.…”