Resting-state functional connectivity of social brain regions predicts motivated dishonesty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivated dishonesty is a typical social behavior varying from person to person. Resting-state fMRI (rsfMRI) is capable of identifying unique patterns from functional connectivity (FC) between brain networks. To identify the relevant neural patterns and build an interpretable model to predict dishonesty, we scanned 8-min rsfMRI before an information-passing task. In the task, we employed monetary rewards to induce dishonesty. We applied both connectome-based predictive modeling (CPM) and region-of-interest (ROI) analysis to examine the association between FC and dishonesty. CPM indicated that the stronger FC between fronto-parietal and default mode networks can predict a higher dishonesty rate. The ROIs were set in the regions involving four cognitive processes (self-reference, cognitive control, reward valuation, and moral regulation). The ROI analyses showed that a stronger FC between these regions and the prefrontal cortex can predict a higher dishonesty rate. Our study offers an integrated model to predict dishonesty with rsfMRI, and the results suggest that the frequent motivated dishonest behavior may require a higher engagement of social brain regions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".