New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Head Lines: Handwriting Reveals Liars

Also: Stimulating Brain Cells May Be Trickier Than We Thought

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Murder, She Wrote Handwriting analysis may reveal dishonesty

A new study adds “writing with large strokes and applying high pressure on paper” to the list of telltale signs that someone might be lying. Researchers at Haifa University in Israel could tell whether or not students were writing the truth by analyzing these physical properties of their handwriting.

Lying requires more cognitive resources than being truthful, says lead author Gil Luria. “You need to invent a story, make sure not to contradict yourself, et cetera.” Any task done simultaneously, therefore, becomes less automatic. Tabletop pressure sensors showed this effect in the students’ handwriting, which became more belabored when they fibbed.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Handwriting analysis could eventually complement other lie detection methods and would add a new dimension because, unlike almost all other techniques, it doesn’t rely on verbal communication, Luria says.
 

Electric Surprise Stimulating brain cells may be trickier than we thought

Scientists and doctors have long used electricity to both study and treat the brain. But a report in the August 27, 2009, issue of Neuron indicates that the brain’s response to electricity is exceptionally complex. Using a new type of optical imaging, Harvard Medical School researchers observed neurons as they were stimulated by an electrode. Instead of activating a small sphere of surrounding neurons as expected, the electrodes caused sparse strings of neurons to fire across the brain. The finding suggests that brain surgeons and the designers of neural prosthetics have a much smaller margin of error than previously thought—shifting an electrode even slightly could activate an entirely different set of neurons.
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe