바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.3
Citation Share

Sensitivity of P300-based concealed information test: A comparison between testing paradigms with and without a target stimulus

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2008, v.27 no.3, pp.653-673




& (2008). Sensitivity of P300-based concealed information test: A comparison between testing paradigms with and without a target stimulus. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 27(3), 653-673.
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

In this study, the sensitivity of P300-based concealed information test using the paradigm of three stimuli(targets, probes, and irrelevants), P3S, was estimated with parental names as concealed information and it was compared with the sensitivity of two stimuli(probes and irrelevants) paradigm. Two new procedures were devised to force the subjects to concentrate on the stimuli in the two stimuli paradigm. In the ‘paradigm of two stimuli with category judgement (P2S-CJ)’, the subjects made a judgement on the category to which the presented stimulus belonged. In the ‘paradigm of two stimuli with recognition test (P2S-RT)’, on the other hand, the subjects were given a recognition test after the presentation of a stimulus. The highest P300 difference between probes and irrelevants was found when the P3S was used, compared to the differences in P300 when the P2S-CJ or the P2S-RT was used. The sensitivity of the P3S for individual diagnosis was also highest (.875) compared to the sensitivity of the P2S-CJ or the P2S-RT. In contrast to the results from previous studies, the differences in response time between probes and irrelevants were not statistically significant in all three types of paradigm. Failure to find the differences in response time was explained by the nature of the stimuli used in the present study.

keywords
event-related potential, P300, concealed information test, guilty knowledge test, lie detection, 사건관련전위, P300, 유죄지식검사, 숨긴정보검사, 거짓말탐지

Reference

1.

김명선 (1995). 사상관련전위의 임상적 활용. 한국심리학회지: 임상, 14(1), 253-263.

2.

김혁, 박판규, 이강희, 김현택 (2008). 관련자극과 무관련자극에서 사건관련전위 비교분석 연구. 2008 한국심리학회 연차학술대회 논문집, 122-123.

3.

엄진섭, 지형기, 박광배 (2008). 폴리그라프 검사의 정확도 추정. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 14(4), 1-18.

4.

엄진섭, 한유화, 지형기, 박광배 (2008). Backster ZCT를 사용한 폴리그라프 검사의 일반화가능도. 감성과학, 11(4), 인쇄 중.

5.

함지선, 이장한 (2007). 가상의 범죄환경과 뇌파를 이용한 거짓말 탐지 연구. 2007 한국심리학회 연차학술대회 논문집, 524-525.

6.

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

7.

Abrams, S. (1989). The Complete Polygraph Handbook. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

8.

Allen, J., Iacono, W. G., & 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.

9.

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.

10.

Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A Critical review of the control questions tset (CQT). In Murray Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press.

11.

Ben-Shakhar, G. & Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied psychology, 81, 273-281.

12.

Cohen, J. & Polich, J. (1997). On the number of trials needed for P300. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 25, 249-255.

13.

Craik, F. I. M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 104, 268-294.

14.

Cross, T. P. & Saxe, L. (2001). Polygraph testing and sexual abuse: The lure of the magic lasso. Child Maltreatment, 6, 195-206.

15.

Cutmore, T. R. H., Djakovic, T., Kebbell M. R., & Shum, D. H. K. (2008). An object cue is more effective than a word in ERP-based detection of deception. International journal of Psychophysiology, doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho. 2008. 08.003

16.

Duncan-Johnson, C. C. & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: The variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability, Psychophysiology, 14, 456-467.

17.

Duncan-Johnson, C. C. (1981). P300 Latency: a new metric for information processing. Psychophysiology, 35, 344-347.

18.

Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.

19.

Fabiani, M., Karis, D., & Donchin, E. (1986). P300 and recall in an incidental memory paradigm. Psychophysiology, 23, 298-308.

20.

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

21.

Farwell, L. A. & Smith, S. S. (2001) Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 135-143.

22.

Furedy, J. J. (1996a). Some elementary distinctions among, and comments concerning the ‘control’ question ‘test’ (CQT) polygrapher's many problems: A reply to Honts, Kircher, and Raskin. International Joural of Psychophysiology, 22, 53-59.

23.

Furedy, J. J. (1996b). The North American polygraph and psychophysiology: Disinterested, uninterested and interested perspectives. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 97-105.

24.

Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Cohen, A. (2005). Behavioral and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Concealed Information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 147-158.

25.

Grubin, D. & Madsen, L. (2005) Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16, 357-369.

26.

Honts, C. R., Devitt, M, K., Winbush, M., & Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and Physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84-92.

27.

Iacono, W. G. (2008). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: Problems using confessions to determine ground truth. Physiology & Behavior, 95, 24-26.

28.

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

29.

Kok, A. (1997). Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources: a review and synthesis. Biological Psychology, 45, 19-56.

30.

Kramer, A. F., Sirevaag, E. J., & Braune, R. (1987). A psychological assessment of operator workload during simulated flight missions. Human Factors, 29, 145-160.

31.

Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385-388.

32.

Magliero, A., Bashore, T. R., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1984). On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology, 21, 171-186.

33.

Meijer, E. H., Smulders, F. T. Y., Merckelbach, H. L. G. J., & Wolf. A. G. (2007). The P300 is sensitive to concealed face recognition. International Journal of Psychology, 66, 231-237.

34.

Meijer, E. H., Smulders, F. T. Y., & Merckelbach, H. L. G. J. (2008). Combining P300 and SCR in the detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychology, 69, Symposium Abstract, 150.

35.

Mertens, R., Allen, J., Culp, N., & Crawford, L., (2003). The detection of deception using event-related potentials in a highly realistic mock crime scenario. Psychophysiology, 40, S60 (abstract).

36.

National Research Council. (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.

37.

Paller, K. A., McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1988). ERPs predictive of subsequent recall and recognition performance. Biological Psychology, 26, 269-276.

38.

Polich, J. (1986). P300 Development from Auditory Stimuli. Psychophysiology, 23, 590-597.

39.

Polich, J. (1991). P300 in the evaluation of aging and dementia. In: Brunia, C. H. M., Mulder, G., & Verbaten, M. N. (Eds.), Event-related Brain Potential Research (EEG Supplement 42). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

40.

Ravden, D. & Polich. J. (1999). On P300 measurement stability: habituation, intra-trial block variation, and ultradian rhythms, Biological Psychology, 51, 59-76.

41.

Reid, J. E. & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception, the polygraph technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.

42.

Romero, R. & Polich, J. (1996). P3(00) Habituation from Auditory and Visual Stimuli. Physiology & Behavior, 59, 517-522.

43.

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.

44.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. (1991). An ERP-based, control-question lie detector analog: Algorithms for discriminating effects within individuals’ average waveforms. Psychophysiology, 38, 319-335.

45.

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.

46.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, G., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., & Mazzeri, L. (1988). A modified, event-related potential -based guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience. 24, 157-161.

47.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winogard, 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.

48.

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

49.

Saxe, L., Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. (1985). The validity of polygraph testing. American Psychologis, 40, 355-366.

50.

Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Mosmann, A. M., & Shafto, M. G. (2000). Using Response Time Measures to Assess “Guilty Knowledge”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30-37.

51.

Soskins, M., Rosenfeld, J. P., & 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.

52.

Squires, K. C., Wickens, C., Squires, N. K., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveforms of the cortical event related potentials. Science, 193, 1142-1146.

53.

Wasserman, S. & Bockenholt, U. (1989). Bootstrapping: applications to psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 26, 208-221.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy