Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (2)
- Memory (2)
- A. Publications in Peer-reviewed Journals (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Autobiographical memory (1)
-
- Bioethics (1)
- Brain (1)
- Child abuse (1)
- Child development (1)
- Child neglect (1)
- Child psychology (1)
- Child witnesses (1)
- Cognitive neuroscience (1)
- Criminal responsibility (1)
- Daubert test (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Decision making (1)
- EEG (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Empirical research (1)
- Episodic memory (1)
- Eyewitness memory (1)
- FMRI (1)
- Injury (1)
- Judging (1)
- Law and neuroscience (1)
- Lie detection (1)
- Neuroethics (1)
- Neurolaw (1)
- Psychology (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
39. Young Children’S Difficulty With Indirect Speech Acts: Implications For Questioning Child Witnesses, Angela D. Evans, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kang Lee, Thomas D. Lyon
39. Young Children’S Difficulty With Indirect Speech Acts: Implications For Questioning Child Witnesses, Angela D. Evans, Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Kang Lee, Thomas D. Lyon
Thomas D. Lyon
The Hidden Daubert Factor: How Judges Use Error Rates In Assessing Scientific Evidence, John B. Meixner Jr., Shari Seidman Diamond
The Hidden Daubert Factor: How Judges Use Error Rates In Assessing Scientific Evidence, John B. Meixner Jr., Shari Seidman Diamond
Scholarly Works
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court provided a framework under which trial judges must assess the evidentiary reliability of scientific evidence whose admissibility is challenged. One factor of the Daubert test, the “known or potential rate of error” of the expert’s method, has received considerably less scholarly attention than the other factors, and past empirical study has indicated that judges have a difficult time understanding the factor and use it less frequently in their analyses as compared to other factors. In this paper, we examine one possible interpretation of the “known or potential rate of …
Detecting Knowledge Of Incidentally Acquired, Real-World Memories Using A P300-Based Concealed-Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
Detecting Knowledge Of Incidentally Acquired, Real-World Memories Using A P300-Based Concealed-Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
Scholarly Works
Autobiographical memory for events experienced during normal daily life has been studied at the group level, but no studies have yet examined the ability to detect recognition of incidentally acquired memories among individual subjects. We present the first such study here, which employed a concealed-information test in which subjects were shown words associated with activities they had experienced the previous day. Subjects wore a video-recording device for 4 hr on Day 1 and then returned to the laboratory on Day 2, where they were shown words relating to events recorded with the camera (probe items) and words of the same …
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
All Faculty Scholarship
President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement, published here, containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent …