바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1226-9654
  • E-ISSN2733-466X
  • KCI

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.30 No.3

Citation Share

P300 숨긴정보검사의 오류 긍정률

The false positive rate of P300-based concealed information test

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2018, v.30 no.3, pp.241-259
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2018.30.3.003
엄진섭 (충북대학교)
전하정 (충남대학교)
손진훈 (충남대학교)
엄진섭, 전하정, & 손진훈. (2018). P300 숨긴정보검사의 오류 긍정률. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 30(3), 241-259, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2018.30.3.003

초록

P300 숨긴정보검사(P300 CIT)는 무죄조건에서 목표자극을 제외한 나머지 자극들이 모두 동일한 P300을 유발할 것이라고 가정한다. 그러나 P300 이론에 따르면 자극의 동질성 가정이 충족되지 않을 수 있으며, 따라서 P300 CIT의 오류 긍정률이 증가할 수 있다. 이러한 가능성을 확인하기 위하여 일련의 연구를 수행하였다. 연구 1에서는 단일관련자극 프로토콜에서 자극의 동질성 가정이 파기되는 정도를 확인하였다. 모의범죄를 이용한 연구에서는 전체 사례의 약 30%에서 자극의 동질성 가정이 파기되었으며, 기억상실을 이용한 연구에서는 자극의 동질성 가정이 대부분 유지되었다. 연구 2에서는 중다관련자극 프로토콜에서 자극의 동질성 가정이 파기되는 정도를 확인하였다. 연구결과 전체 사례의 약 25%에서 자극의 동질성 가정이 파기되었다. 연구 3에서는 자극의 비동질성 수준(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)과 관련자극의 개수(1, 3, 6), 시행 수(30, 48, 66), 유의수준(.10, .05)에 따른 오류 긍정률을 추정하기 위하여 몬테 카를로 연구를 수행하였다. 자극의 비동질성 수준이 0인 경우에는 관련자극의 개수와 시행 수, 유의수준에 관계없이 오류 긍정률이 적절하게 통제되었다. 그러나 자극의 비동질성 수준이 1 이상인 경우에는 모든 조건에서 오류 긍정률이 증가하였으며, 자극의 비동질성 수준이 증가할수록, 관련자극의 개수가 적을수록, 시행 수가 증가할수록 오류 긍정률이 증가하였다. 유의수준 .10에서 비동질성 수준이 2인 경우에는 오류 긍정률이 12%~25%의 범위를 보였으며, 비동질성 수준이 5인 경우에는 18%~38%의 범위를 보였다. 논의에서 자극이 비동질적인 경우에 오류 긍정률을 통제하는 방법을 제안하였다.

keywords
P300, concealed information test, guilty knowledge test, lie detection, false positive rate, P300, 숨긴정보검사, 유죄지식검사, 거짓말 탐지, 오류 긍정률

Abstract

P300 concealed information test (P300 CIT) assumes that all stimuli except the target stimuli show the same P300 amplitudes in innocent participants. However, according to the P300 theory, the assumption of the equality of stimuli can be easily violated, thus false positive rate of P300 CIT can be increased. A series of studies were conducted to confirm this possibility. In study 1, we identified how much the assumption of the equality of stimuli was violated in single-probe protocol. This assumption was invalidated in about 30% of the participants in the study using a mock crime, but it was almost met in the study using autobiographical information. In study 2, we conducted an experimental study to evaluate the assumption of equality of stimuli in multiple-probe protocol. It turned out that the assumption was not met in about 25% of participants. In study 3, a Monte Carlo study was conducted to estimate the false positive rates by the level of non-equality of stimuli (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), the number of probes (1, 3, and 6), the number of trials (30, 48, and 66), and the significance levels (.10 and .05). When the level of non-equality of stimuli was set to 0, the false positive rates were properly controlled regardless of the number of probes, the number of trials, and the significance levels. However, the false positive rates was increased in all conditions when the level of non-equality of stimuli was 1 or higher. The false-positive rates got higher when the level of non-equality of stimuli got higher, the number of probes got smaller, and the number of trials got higher. When the level of non-equality of stimuli was 2, the false positive rates ranged from 12% to 25% at the significance level .10. While the level of non-equality of stimuli was 5, it fell within the ranged of 18% to 38%. In the discussion, we proposed methods to control false positive rates in the presence of non-equality of stimuli.

keywords
P300, concealed information test, guilty knowledge test, lie detection, false positive rate, P300, 숨긴정보검사, 유죄지식검사, 거짓말 탐지, 오류 긍정률

참고문헌

1.

Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., & Khalilzadeh, M. A. (2006). A comparison of methods for ERP assessment in a P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 309- 320.

2.

Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2002). The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: Future prospects and obstacles. In Murray Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. San Diego: Academic Press.

3.

Cutmore, T. R. H., Djakovic, T., Kebbell, M. R., & Shum, D. H. K. (2009). An object cue is more effective than a word in ERP-based detection of deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71, 185-192.

4.

Deng, X., Rosenfeld, J. P., Ward, A., & Labkovsky, E. (2016). Superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in a P300-based CIT: The Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 105, 26-34.

5.

Dietrich, A. B., Hu, X., & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2014). The effects of sweep numbers per average and protocol type on the accuracy of the P300-based concealed information test. Applied psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 39, 67-73.

6.

Eom, J. S., & Park, K. (2014). Effects of the number of trials on test results in P300-based concealed information test. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28, 61-79.

7.

Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28, 531-547.

8.

Good, P. I. (2004). Permutation, parametric, and bootstrap tests of hypotheses. New York: Springer.

9.

Hu, X., Pornpattananangkul, N., & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2013). N200 and P300 as orthogonal and integrable indicators of distinct awareness and recognition processes in memory detection. Psychophysiology, 50, 454-464.

10.

Johnson, R. (1993). On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event‐related potential. Psychophysiology, 30, 90-97.

11.

Jung, E. K., & Kim Y. Y. (2013). A comparison of detection accuracy of P300-based guilty knowledge test: Based on bootstrap approach. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 25, 75-92.

12.

Lee, B. H., Hwang S. T., Park, K., Sohn, J. H., & Eom, J. S. (2013). P300-based concealed information test and inter- stimulus intervals (ISIs): A comparison among 500ms, 800ms, and 3000ms ISIs. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 27, 87-107.

13.

Lee, M. H., Eom, J. S., Eum, Y. J., & Sohn, J. H. (2015). Effects of countermeasures on P300-based concealed information test with short inter-stimulus interval. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 29, 91-108.

14.

Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M., & Connolly, J. F. (2009). Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73, 218-225.

15.

Meijer, E. H., Selle, N. K., Elber, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2014). Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data. Psychophysiology, 51, 879-904.

16.

Meixner, J. B., & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2014). Detecting knowledge of incidentally acquired, real-world memories using a P300-based concealed-information test. Psychological Science, 25, 1994-2005.

17.

Mertens, R., & Allen, J. J. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: Deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45, 286-298.

18.

Osugi, A., & Ohira, H. (2017). Emotional arousal at memory encoding enhanced P300 in the Concealed Information Test. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2334.

19.

Park, K. (2003). Analysis of variance and regression. Seoul: Hakjisa.

20.

Rosenfeld, J. P. (2005). Brain fingerprinting: A critical analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4, 20-37.

21.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., & 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.

22.

Rosenfeld, J. P., & Donchin, E. (2015). Resampling (bootstrapping) the mean: A definite do. Psychophysiology, 52, 969-972.

23.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & 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.

24.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., & Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41, 205-219.

25.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Ward, A., Meijer, E. H., & Yukhnenko, D. (2017). Bootstrapping the P300 in diagnostic psychophysiology: How many iterations are needed?. Psychophysiology, 54, 366-373.

26.

Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P., & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23, 695-703.

27.

Soskins, M., Rosenfeld, J. P., & Niendam, T. (2001). The case for peak-to-peak measurement of P300 recorded at 0.3 hz high pass filter settings in detection of deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 173-180.

28.

Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (Eds.). (2011). Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge University Press.

29.

Verschuere, B., Rosenfeld, J. P., Winograd, M. R., Labkovsky, E., & Wiersema, R. (2009). The role of deception in P300 memory detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 253-262.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책