바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.1
Citation Share

Application of ERP-based Memory Identification Using Bootstrap Technique for Eyewitness: Comparison of Recognition Protocol and Concealed Information Task Protocol

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.1, pp.125-136
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.009




& (2020). Application of ERP-based Memory Identification Using Bootstrap Technique for Eyewitness: Comparison of Recognition Protocol and Concealed Information Task Protocol. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 32(1), 125-136, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.009
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Some event-related potentials (ERPs) components reflect recognition information processes. In this study, we tested the accuracy of ERP-based memory classification using peak-to-peak bootstrapped amplitude difference (BAD) method. Participants (N=25) watched a mock-crime video and performed task about 1 hour later. One group (n=13) performed recognition protocol which a response was selected from seen or unseen responses after probe presentation. The other group (n=12) performed Target/Non-target (T/NT) protocol which a response was selected from target or non-target responses based on the color of background behind the memory cue. We analyzed cue-evoked ERP and the bootstrapped differences in recollection-related ERP components (late positive complex, LPC; late posterior negativity, LPN) at Pz site were used for classification (observed vs. unobserved). Analyzing ERP differences in recognition protocol group were highly effective in distinguishing between probe and the other type of stimulus (ACC = .85). On the other hands, analyzing ERP differences in T/NT task protocol group were useless for eyewitness memory Identification (ACC = .17). These results indicate neural activity evoked by recognition cue could be used for eyewitness investigation, and suggest the property of the task is important.

keywords
eyewitness memory, event-related potentials, LPC, LPN, bootstrap, 목격자 기억, 사건관련전위, LPC, LPN, 부트스트랩

Reference

1.

Abe, N., Okuda, J., Suzuki, M., Sasaki, H., Matsuda, T., Mori, E., . . . Fujii, T. (2008). Neural correlates of true memory, false memory, and deception. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 2811-2819.

2.

Addante, R. J., Ranganath, C., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2012). Examining ERP correlates of recognition memory:evidence of accurate source recognition without recollection. Neuroimage, 62, 439-450.

3.

Cansino, S., Maquet, P., Dolan, R. J., & Rugg, M. D. (2002). Brain activity underlying encoding and retrieval of source memory. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 1048-1056.

4.

Ham, K. S., Kim, K. P., & Jeong, H. J. (2018a). Estimating eyewitness memory accuracy using event-related potentials(ERPs): Focusing on FN400 and LPC. Korean Journal of Investigative Psychology, 4(1), 1-12.

5.

Ham, K. S., Kim, K. P., & Jeong, H. J. (2018b). Support Vector Machine(SVM)-based classification of eyewitness memory using single-trial EEG. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 30, 413-419.

6.

Ham, K. S., Kim, K. P., Jeong, H. J., & Yoo, S. H. (2018). The assessment of eyewitness memory using electroencephalogram: Application of machine learning algorithm. Korean Journal of Legal Medicine, 42, 62-70.

7.

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

8.

Kim, K. P., Jeong, H. J., & Ham, K. S. (2019). Comparison of deep-learning algorithms for EEG-based eyewitness memory classification system. Journal of Scientific Criminal Investigation, 13(2), 95-101.

9.

Kim, K. P., Jeong, H. J., Kim, Y. S., & Ham, K. S. (2019). ERP correlates of eyewitness memory recognition:Effects of time delay and misinformation. The Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 38, 53-74.

10.

Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M., & Connolly, J. F. (2007). Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Psychophysiology, 44, 894-904.

11.

Mecklinger, A., Rosburg, T., & Johansson, M. (2016). Reconstructing the past: The late posterior negativity (LPN) in episodic memory studies. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 68, 621-638.

12.

Multhaup, K. S., De Leonardis, D. M., & Johnson, M. K. (1999). Source memory and eyewitness suggestibility in older adults. The Journal of General Psychology, 126, 74-84.

13.

Ranganath, C., & Paller, K. A. (2000). Neural correlates of memory retrieval and evaluation. Cognitive Brain Research, 9, 209-222.

14.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Hu, X., Labkovsky, E., Meixner, J., &Winograd, M. R. (2013). Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 118-134.

15.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Hu, X., & Pederson, K. (2012). Deception awareness improves P300-based deception detection in concealed information tests. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 114-121.

16.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winograd, M., Lui, M. A., Vandenboom, C., & 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.

17.

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.

18.

Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 251-257.

19.

Schacter, D. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Memory and law:What can cognitive neuroscience contribute?. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 119-123.

20.

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.

21.

Senkfor, A. J., & Van Petten, C. (1998). Who said what? An event-related potential investigation of source and item memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1005-1025.

22.

Song, I. U., Kim, H. M., Lee, K. E., Chang, E. H., & Kim, H. T. (2018). The comparison of bootstrapping analyses in P300-CIT. The Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9, 75-99.

23.

Strozak, P., Bird, C. W., Corby, K., Frishkoff, G., & Curran, T. (2016). FN400 and LPC memory effects for concrete and abstract words. Psychophysiology, 53, 1669-1678.

24.

Wagner, A. D., Shannon, B. J., Kahn, I., & Buckner, R. L. (2005). Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 445-453.

25.

Wilding, E. L. (2000). In what way does the parietal ERP old/new effect index recollection? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 35, 81-87.

26.

Woroch, B., & Gonsalves, B. D. (2010). Event-related potential correlates of item and source memory strength. Brain Research, 1317, 180-191.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy