Exact(9)
In the cued deceptive paradigm, participants were asked to press the relevant button that match with the truth answer in the truthful condition.
In cue-target procedure, all sites showed significant higher amplitude for the Deceptive than the Truthful condition.
Error rate was 0.082 (SD = 0.032) for the truthful condition and 0.091 (SD = 0.037) for the deceptive condition.
For ERP results, deceptive condition showed higher medial frontal negativity mean amplitudes than truthful condition in both target-cue and cue-target procedures.
Post-hoc analysis showed more negative mean amplitude the deceptive condition than in truthful condition [ F 1,15) = 5.753, p < 0.05].
Comparative studies between the truthful and deceptive conditions showed that the truthful condition elicited higher positive deflection than the deceptive condition did during deceptive process.
Similar(50)
In this way, it gives a comparison of linguistic differences in the deceptive and truthful conditions.
However, P2 and CNV were only found obviously in deceptive and truthful conditions.
Behavioral data in RT showed that deceptive conditions were more difficult (longer RT) than truthful conditions in relation to presenting orders.
The RT in Truthful conditions were significant shorter than in deceptive conditions (cue-target [ F 2,30) = 4.933, p < 0.05], target-cue [ F 2,30) = 5.025, p < 0.05]).
No significant difference of peak latencies was found between deceptive and truthful conditions in cue-target [ F 2,30) = 1.127, p > 0.05] and target-cue [ F 2,30) = 0.795, p > 0.05] procedures.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com