Neurolaw

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 18-22

  Belcher, Annabelle ^a   Sinnott Armstrong, Walter ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949484424     PISSN: 19395078     EISSN: 19395086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.8     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Greene J, Cohen J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2004, 359:1775-1785.
2. Sapolsky R. The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. In: Zeki S, Goodenough O, eds. Law and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
3. Greely HT. Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: some possible legal and social implications of advances in neuroscience. In: Garland B, ed. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press; 2004.
4. Morse SJ. New neuroscience, old problems. In: Garland B, ed. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press; 2004.
5. Greely HT, Illes J. Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am J Law Med 2007, 33:377-431.
6. Langleben DD. Detection of deception with fMRI: are we there yet? Legal Criminol Psychol 2008, 13:1-9.
7. Spence SA. Playing devil's advocate: the case against fMRI lie detection. Legal Criminol Psychol 2008, 13:11-25.
8. Uttal WR. Neuroscience in the Courtroom, Chapter Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co; 2008.
9. Bizzi E, Hyman SE, Raichle ME, Kanwisher N, Phelps EA, et al. Using Imaging to Identify Deceit:Scientific and Ethical Questions. Cambridge, Mass: American Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2009.
10. Laurys S. Neurology of Consciousness: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology. London: Academic Press; 2009.
11. Kolber A. Pain detection and the privacy of subjective experience. Am J Law Med 2007, 33:433-456.
12. Baird AA. The developmental neuroscience of criminal behavior. In: Farahany N, ed. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009, 81-121.
13. Morse SJ. Addiction, science, and criminal responsibility. In: Farahany N, ed. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009, 241-288.
14. Sinnott-Armstrong W, Roskies A, Brown T, Murphy E. Brain images as legal evidence. Episteme 2008, 5:359-373.
15. Buckholtz JW, Asplund CL, Dux PE, Zald DH, Gore JC, et al. The neural correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron 2008, 60:930-940.
16. Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitiveenhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 2008, 456:702-705.
17. Thomas BP, Welch EB, Niederhauser BD, Whetsell WO Jr, Anderson AW, et al. High-resolution 7T MRI of the human hippocampus in vivo. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008, 28:1266-1272.
18. McDuff SG, Frankel HC, Norman KA. Multivoxel pattern analysis reveals increased memory targeting and reduced use of retrieved details during single-agenda source monitoring. J Neurosci 2009, 29:508-516.
19. Hassabis D, Chu C, Rees G, Weiskopf N, Molyneux PD, et al. Decoding neuronal ensembles in the human hippocampus. Curr Biol 2009, 19:1-9.
20. Negishi M, Abildgaard M, Laufer I, Nixon T, Constable RT. An EEG (electroencephalogram) recording system with carbon wire electrodes for simultaneous EEG-fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) recording. J Neurosci Methods 2008, 173:99-107.