References
(2014). Human rights and legal limits on the use of deception detection methods. A view from Germany. European Psychologist, 19, 221–223. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000210
. (1999, July 30). 1StR 618/98 [Ruling on the scientific requirements for psychological credibility evaluations, especially in a case of child sexual abuse]. BGHSt. 45, 164.
(2014). Mind reading using neuroimaging: Is this the future of deception detection? European Psychologist, 19, 172–183. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000193
(2014). Preventing future crimes: Identifying markers of true and false intent. European Psychologist, 19, 195–206. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000202
(1989). Criteria-based statement analysis. In , Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). New York, NY: Springer.
. (2008). Privacy impact assessment for the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_spot.pdf
. (2013). Aviation security: TSA should limit future funding for behavior detection activities. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159
(2014). What’s on your mind? Recent advances in memory detection using the Concealed Information Test. European Psychologist, 19, 162–171. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000194
(2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? Credibility assessment 25 years after Steller and Köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, 19, 207–220. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000200
(2014). Interviewing to detect deception. European Psychologist, 19, 184–194. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000201
