Comparison between different baseline correction methods.

<p>Good (a) and bad (b) trial samples after preprocessing of fNIRS data. Solid cyan curves: the time window for RDSs viewing and black screen (28s for each trial). Black curves: subjective assessments and shut-eye rests (13.3s). The averaged response of good (c) and bad (e) trial samples using traditional time-course analysis (zero order baseline corrections). The averaged response of good (d) and bad (f) trial samples using curvilinear fitting baseline corrections.</p

Haemodynamic changes in both ROIs.

<p>Haemodynamic changes in the left ROI (blue bar) and right ROI (orange bar) for RDSs with 8 disparities for all participants (n = 11). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean across all participants. Statistical analysis indicates that there is a left lateralization of the activation pattern; furthermore, haemodynamic response to an RDS with 0.5° disparity is significantly stronger than to an RDS with 1.1°.</p

Haemodynamic response and beta values.

<p>(a): Comparison of HbO and Hb response to stereopsis. Averaged HbO signals (red solid curve) show larger magnitude and thus better sensitivity. (b): The topography of averaged beta values for 8 disparities from all participants (n = 11). The topography shows that the occipital cortex is spatially correlated with stereoscopic vision and that the activation pattern is associated with eye dominance.</p

The correlation between subjective assessments and fNIRS data at group level (n = 11).

<p>The correlation between subjective assessments and fNIRS data at group level (n = 11).</p

The MNI coordinates of channels in two ROIs.

<p>The MNI coordinates of channels in two ROIs.</p

Illustration of the data processing.

<p>(a): a bad trial sample with large background noise; (b): extracted brain activity from the raw data; (c): fitting the data by two normal distribution functions.</p

Statistical results of subjective assessments.

<p>Correlations between subjective assessments and different binocular disparities (a, b, c, d). The evaluation of sustainability is correlated with the perception of stereopsis (e) and the degree of discomfort (f). Subsequent post-hoc pairwise comparisons (with FDR controlled) reveal that the differences of evaluations are all significant or marginally significant (P_max = 0.052) among different disparities in (a), (b) and (d). The evaluation of RDS with 0.7° disparity is significantly larger than RDS with 1.1° in (c). *: Significance at the 0.05 level. **: Significance at the 0.01 level.</p

Data_Sheet_2.XLSX

<p>Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to test whether monitoring inhibition-related brain regions is a feasible method for detecting both infrequent liars and frequent liars. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups: the deceptive group (liars) and the non-deceptive group (ND group, innocents). All the participants were required to undergo a simulated interrogation by a computer. The participants from the deceptive group were instructed to tell a mix of lies and truths and those of the ND group were instructed always to tell the truth. Based on the number of deceptions, the participants of the deceptive group were further divided into a infrequently deceptive group (IFD group, infrequent liars) and a frequently deceptive group (FD group, frequent liars). The infrequent liars exhibited greater neural activities than the frequent liars and the innocents in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) when performing the deception detection tasks. While performing deception detection tasks, infrequent liars showed significantly greater neural activation in the left MFG than the baseline, but frequent liars and innocents did not exhibit this pattern of neural activation in any area of inhibition-related brain regions. The results of individual analysis showed an acceptable accuracy of detecting infrequent liars, but an unacceptable accuracy of detecting frequent liars. These results suggest that using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions is feasible for detecting infrequent liars, for whom deception may be more effortful and therefore more physiologically marked, but not frequent liars.</p

Data_Sheet_1.zip

<p>Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to test whether monitoring inhibition-related brain regions is a feasible method for detecting both infrequent liars and frequent liars. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups: the deceptive group (liars) and the non-deceptive group (ND group, innocents). All the participants were required to undergo a simulated interrogation by a computer. The participants from the deceptive group were instructed to tell a mix of lies and truths and those of the ND group were instructed always to tell the truth. Based on the number of deceptions, the participants of the deceptive group were further divided into a infrequently deceptive group (IFD group, infrequent liars) and a frequently deceptive group (FD group, frequent liars). The infrequent liars exhibited greater neural activities than the frequent liars and the innocents in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) when performing the deception detection tasks. While performing deception detection tasks, infrequent liars showed significantly greater neural activation in the left MFG than the baseline, but frequent liars and innocents did not exhibit this pattern of neural activation in any area of inhibition-related brain regions. The results of individual analysis showed an acceptable accuracy of detecting infrequent liars, but an unacceptable accuracy of detecting frequent liars. These results suggest that using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions is feasible for detecting infrequent liars, for whom deception may be more effortful and therefore more physiologically marked, but not frequent liars.</p

Data_Sheet_3.XLSX

<p>Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to test whether monitoring inhibition-related brain regions is a feasible method for detecting both infrequent liars and frequent liars. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups: the deceptive group (liars) and the non-deceptive group (ND group, innocents). All the participants were required to undergo a simulated interrogation by a computer. The participants from the deceptive group were instructed to tell a mix of lies and truths and those of the ND group were instructed always to tell the truth. Based on the number of deceptions, the participants of the deceptive group were further divided into a infrequently deceptive group (IFD group, infrequent liars) and a frequently deceptive group (FD group, frequent liars). The infrequent liars exhibited greater neural activities than the frequent liars and the innocents in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) when performing the deception detection tasks. While performing deception detection tasks, infrequent liars showed significantly greater neural activation in the left MFG than the baseline, but frequent liars and innocents did not exhibit this pattern of neural activation in any area of inhibition-related brain regions. The results of individual analysis showed an acceptable accuracy of detecting infrequent liars, but an unacceptable accuracy of detecting frequent liars. These results suggest that using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions is feasible for detecting infrequent liars, for whom deception may be more effortful and therefore more physiologically marked, but not frequent liars.</p