Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:3598524rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0024195lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3598524lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0005491lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3598524lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1511790lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3598524lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1280500lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:dateCreated1987-7-24lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:abstractTextThis study examined the effect of audio electrodermal biofeedback training on the detection of deception. The subjects consisted of 68 volunteers enrolled in selected undergraduate college courses. Each subject was required to commit a mock murder, after which a polygraph examiner administered a series of five consecutive "lie detector" tests to ascertain the facts involved in his/her murder. Before testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either a biofeedback condition or to a control group. The detection efficiency associated with the subject's respiration responses was significantly enhanced by simultaneous auditory biofeedback given during the polygraph testing; however, the feedback's effect upon the detection rates associated with the electrodermal measures that it was reflecting was neither statistically significant nor in the same direction. The results support the premise that audio biofeedback might be useful in enhancing respiration's detection efficiency during polygraph testing.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:monthMaylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:issn0022-1198lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TsaiT YTYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:volume32lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:pagination736-46lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:dateRevised2009-11-19lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:3598524-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:year1987lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:articleTitleEffect of biofeedback on the detection of deception.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:3598524pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed