Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T14:18:58.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - P300 in detecting concealed information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

J. Peter Rosenfeld
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Bruno Verschuere
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ewout Meijer
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Overview: This chapter reviews the use of the P300 ERP in the detection of concealed information since the first published papers in the late 1980s. First, there is a description of P300 as a cortical signal of the recognition of meaningful information. This attribute was applied directly to concealed information detection in the first P300-based CIT protocol called the “three stimulus protocol.” There follows a detailed discussion and review of the methods of analysis used to determine guilt or innocence with the P300, as well as the major papers using and extending the three stimulus protocol in areas beyond those reported in the first publications. This discussion closes with the problematic findings showing that the P300-based, three stimulus protocol is vulnerable to countermeasures. The author's theoretical efforts to understand countermeasure vulnerability with this protocol are then described, followed by an introduction of the theoretically based novel protocol (called the Complex Trial Protocol or CTP) developed to resist countermeasures to P300-based CITs. The use of the CTP in detecting self-referring as well as incidentally acquired information (e.g., in a mock crime scenario) are described, as well as its recent use in detection of details of planned acts of terror prior to actual criminal acts. The use of reaction time as well as a novel ERP component called P900 for detecting countermeasures is also described. The chapter concludes with some caveats about remaining research issues.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
, pp. 63 - 89
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., and Khalilzadeh, M. A. (2006). A comparison of methods for ERP assessment in a P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. J. B., and Iacono, W. G. (1997). A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection. Psychophysiology, 34, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J. J. B., Iacono, W. G., and Danielson, K. D. (1992). The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioral measures: a methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. Psychophysiology, 29, 504–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 103–126). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2002). The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: future prospects and obstacles. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 87–102). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Donchin, E., Kramer, A., and Wickens, C. (1986). Applications of brain event related potentials to problems in engineering psychology. In Coles, M., Porges, S., and Donchin, E. (eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, Processes and Applications (pp. 702–710). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., and Coles, M. G. H. (2000). Event-related brain potentials: methods, theory, and applications. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., and Berntsen, G. (eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 85–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fabiani, M., Karis, D., and Donchin, E., (1983). P300 and memory: individual differences in the von Restorff effect. Psychophysiology, 558 (abstract).Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A., and Donchin, E. (1986) The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 24, S34 (abstract).Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A ., and Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 28, 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamamoto, Y., Hira, S., and Furumitsu, I. (2009) Effects of refreshing memory on P300-based GKT administered one month after a mock crime for repeated offenders. Poster presented at 49th Ann. Meeting, Society for Psychophysiolological Research. Berlin.
Iacono, W. G. (2007). Detection of deception. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., and Berntsen, G. (eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 668–703). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M. M., and Rosenfeld, J. P. (1992). Oddball-evoked P300-based method of deception detection in the laboratory II: utilization of nonselective activation of relevant knowledge. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 12, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labkovsky, E. B., and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2009) Accuracy of the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of deception as a function of number of countered irrelevant stimuli. Poster presented at 49th Ann. Meeting, Society for Psychophysiolological Research. Berlin.
Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M., and Connolly, J. F. (2007) Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Psychophysiology, 44, 894–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lui, M. and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2008). Detection of deception about multiple, concealed, mock crime items, based on a spatial-temporal analysis of ERP amplitude and scalp distribution. Psychophysiology, 45, 721–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lui, M. and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2009). The application of subliminal priming in lie detection: scenario for identification of members of a terrorist ring. Psychophysiology, 46, 889–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd edn. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H., Smulders, F. T., and Merckelbach, H. L. (in press). Extracting concealed information from groups. Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Meijer, E. H., Smulders, F. T., Merckelbach, H. L., and Wolf, A. G. (2007). The P300 is sensitive to concealed face recognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meixner, J. B., and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2009a). Identifying terrorist information using the P300 ERP component. Poster presented at 49th Ann. Meeting, Society for Psychophysiolological Research. Berlin.
Meixner, J. B., and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2009b). Countermeasure mechanisms in a P300-based concealed information test. Psychophysiology, 47, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, R., and Allen, J. J. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polich, J. (1999). P300 in clinical applications. In Niedermeyer, E. and Silva, F. Lopes (eds.), Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications and Related Fields, 4th edn. (pp. 1073–1091). Baltimore and Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., and McKoon, G. (1981). Automatic and strategic priming in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 204–215.CrossRef
Rosenfeld, J. P. (2002). Event-related potentials in the detection of deception, malingering, and false memories. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 265–286). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., and Labkovsky, E. (in press) New P300-based protocol to detect concealed information: resistance to mental countermeasures against only half the irrelevant stimuli and a possible ERP indicator of countermeasures. Psychophysiology.
Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., and Furedy, J. J. (2006). P300-based detection of concealed autobiographical versus incidentally acquired information in target and non-target paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., and Singer, E. (2007). Single versus multiple probe blocks of P300-based concealed information tests for autobiographical versus incidentally learned information. Biological Psychology, 74, 396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., and Qian, J. H. (1991). An ERP based, control-question lie detector analog: algorithms for discriminating effects within individuals' average wave forms. Psychophysiology, 32, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Rao, A., Soskins, M., and Miller, A. R. (2002). P300 scalp distribution as an index of deception: control for task demand. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 3(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., and Ryan, A. (2004). Simple effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenfeld, J. P., Nasman, V. T., Whalen, I., Cantwell, B., and Mazzeri, L. (1987). Late vertex positivity in event-related potentials as a guilty knowledge indicator: a new method of lie detection. International Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, G., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., and Mazzeri, L. (1988). A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winograd, M., Lui, M. A., Vandenboom, C., and Chedid, E. (2008). The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): a new, countermeasure-resistant, accurate P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 45, 906–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Mosmann, A. M., and Shafto, M. G. (2000). Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokolovsky, A. W., Rothenberg, J., Meixner, J. B., and Rosenfeld, J. P . (2009). Sequential versus simultaneous stimulus acknowledgement and countermeasure responses in P300-based detection of deception. Poster presented at 49th Ann. Meeting, Society for Psychophysiolological Research. Berlin.
Soskins, M., Rosenfeld, J. P., and Niendam, T. (2001). The case for peak-to-peak measurement of P300 recorded at .3 Hz high pass filter settings in detection of deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooff, J. C., and Golden, S. (2002). Validation of an event-related potential memory assessment procedure: intentional learning as opposed to simple repletion. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 16, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooff, J. C., Brunia, C. H. M., and Allen, J. J. B. (1996). Event-related potentials as indirect measures of recognition memory. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooff, J. C., Sargeant, E., Foster, J. K., and Schmand, B. A. (2009). Identifying deliberate attempts to fake memory impairment through the combined use of reaction time and event-related potential measures. International Journal of Psychophysiology. Online April 15.Google ScholarPubMed
Winograd, M. R., and Rosenfeld, J. P. (2008). Mock crime application of the complex trial protocol P300-based concealed information test. Psychophysiology, 45, S62 (abstract).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×