바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

문장을 이용한 P300-기반 유죄지식검사

P300-Based GKT(Guilty Knowledge Test) Using Sentences

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2010, v.24 no.4, pp.19-41
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2010.24.4.002
강기영 (경기대학교)
김영윤 (경기대학교)
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

본 연구는 일련의 범죄사건에 대한 유죄지식의 유무에 따라 다르게 나타나는 사건관련전위의 변화를 알아보고자 하였다. 참가자들에게는 모의된 절도상황 또는 일상적인 행동으로 묘사된 상황에 무선으로 할당되어 경험하도록 하였고 이 중 유죄지식을 가진 사람은 훔쳐간 돈의 액수와 지갑을 감춘 장소에 대해 알게 되었다. 이후 유죄지식의 여부를 검증하기 위해 뇌파검사를 실시하였으며, 참가자들에게는 주어, 목적어, 서술어의 형태와 목적어, 부사구, 서술어의 형태로 완성된 문장을 제시하였다. 전형적인 Oddball 패러다임에서 변형된 형태로 목표문장, 무관련문장, 탐침문장의 3종류의 문장을 제시하였다. 목표문장과 무관련문장은 모두 유죄지식을 포함하지 않는 반면 탐침문장은 유죄지식을 포함하였으며 목표문장은 무관련문장과 탐침문장과는 다르게 반응하도록 하였다. 사건관련전위 분석결과, 탐침문장의 목적어와 부사구가 제시되었을 때 무죄집단과는 다르게 유죄집단의 경우 중심두정부에서 무관련문장에 비해 더 큰 진폭의 P300이 나타났다. 탐침문장의 서술어가 제시되었을 때에는 유죄집단의 경우 무관련문장보다 전두부에서 더 큰 진폭의 P300이 관찰된 반면 무죄집단은 이러한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 유죄집단에서 탐침문장의 목적어와 부사구에 나타난 두정엽에서의 P300은 유죄지식의 변별로 인해 기인한 것으로 보여지며, 이는 기존의 연구결과를 지지하고 있다. 탐침문장의 서술어를 유죄집단에게 제시하였을 때 나타난 전두엽에서의 P300은 유죄지식에 대해 요구되는 의사결정과 판단과정에 있어 반응억제가 관여된 것으로 보여진다.

keywords
사건관련전위, 거짓말 탐지, 유죄지식검사, 문장, P300, 반응억제, P300, guilty knowledge test, event-related potentials, sentences

Abstract

P300-based GKT(guilty knowledge test) has been suggested as an alternative approach for conventional polygraphy. The purpose of this study is to investigate event-related potentials using sentences in guilty and innocent subjects after performing a mock crime. The guilty subjects had concealed informations(probe) about the amount of stolen money and the place to hide a wallet. Event-related potentials were collected as participants performed visual Oddball task that required participants to press one button to target sentence and to press the other button to irrelevant and probe sentences. The sentences were presented in order of the subject, the object, and the predicate or in order of the object, the adverbial phrase, and the predicate. The statistical analysis of P300 elicited by probe stimuli of the object and the adverbial phrase which directly included concealed informations indicated that the guilty subjects showed significantly higher P300 amplitudes than the innocent subjects at the parietal area. P300 elicited by probe stimuli of the predicate which was presented after the object or the adverbial phrase and which did not contain concealed informations indicated that the guilty subjects showed significantly higher P300 amplitudes than the innocent subjects at the frontal area. These results support the hypothesis that the neural processes involved in the predicate as well as the object or the adverbial phrase in the probe sentences are specific in individuals with concealed informations.

keywords
사건관련전위, 거짓말 탐지, 유죄지식검사, 문장, P300, 반응억제, P300, guilty knowledge test, event-related potentials, sentences

참고문헌

1.

권석만 (1997).불안장애의 정신병리 평가.정신병리학, 6,37-51.

2.

김영윤 (2008).P300-기반 거짓말 탐지 연구.한국심리학회지:사회 및 성격,23,111-128.

3.

김영환 (1994).다면적 인성검사실시 요강,서울,한국가이던스.

4.

엄진섭 (2010).사건관련전위를 이용한 숨긴정보검사에서 P300의 진폭에 영향을 미치는 요인.충북대학교대학원 박사학위논문.

5.

이수정,박혜영 (2008).PPI-R 전문가 지침서:한국판 표준화,서울,학지사 심리검사연구소.

6.

이영호,송종용 (1991).BDI,SDS,MMPI-D척도의 신뢰도 및 타당도에 대한 연구.한국심리학회지,10,98-113.

7.

조은경 (2002).거짓말의 특징과 탐지,한국심리학회지: 일반,21,33-65.

8.

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

9.

Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H.,& Khalizadeh, M. A. (2009). A new approach for EEG feature extraction in P300-based liedetection. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine,94,48-57.

10.

Allen, J. J.,& Iacono, W.(1997). A comparison of methods for the event-related potentials in deception detection. Psychophy siology, 34,234-240.

11.

Bekker, E. M., Kenemans, J. L., Koeksma, M. R., Talsma, D., & Verbaten, M. N. (2005). The pure electrophy siology of stopping. International Journal of Psychophy siology, 55,191-198.

12.

Bennington, J. Y., & Polich, J.(1999). Comparison P300 from passive and active tasks for auditory and visual stimuli. International Journal of Psychophy siology,34,171-177.

13.

Ben-Shakhar, G., Elaad, E. (2002). The guilty knowledge test(GKT) as an application of psychophy siology : Future prospects and obstacles. In M. Kleiner(Ed). Handbook of polygraph testing, 87-102, New York: Academic Press.

14.

Boaz, T. L., Perry, N. W., Raney, G., Fischler, I. S., & Shuman, D. (1991). Detection of guilty knowledge with event-related potentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,788-795.

15.

Bradley, M. T., MacLaren, V. V., & Carle, S. B. (1996). Deception and nondeception in guilty knowledge and guilty action polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,153-160.

16.

Braff, D. L. (1993). Information processing and attention dysfunctions in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin,19,233-259.

17.

Brown, W. S., Marsh, J. T.,& LaRue, A.(1983). Exponential electrophysiological aging: P3 latency. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,55,277-285.

18.

Bull, R. (1988). What is the lie-detectiontest? In A. Gale(Ed.),The poltgraphtest : Lies, truth and science. London:Sage.

19.

Clare Kelly, A. M., Hester, R., Murphy, K., Javitt, D. C., Foxe, J. J., & Garavan, H. (2004). Prefrontal-subcortical dissociations underlying inhibitory control revealed by event-related fMRI. European Journal of Neuroscience,19,3105-3112.

20.

Dimoska, A., Johnston, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2006). The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: Indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection? Brain and Cognition,62,98-112.

21.

Donchin, E., Karis, D., Bashore, T. R., Coles, M. G. H., & Gratton, G. (1986). Cognitive psychophysiology and human information processing. In M. G. H. Coles, E. Donchin, & S. W. Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, processes and applications. New York: Guilford press.

22.

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

23.

Ekman, P.(1992). Telling lies. New York: Norton.

24.

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

25.

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.

26.

Fischler, I. S., & Childers, D. G., Achariyapaopan, T., & Perry, N. W. (1985). Brain potentials during sentence verification: Automatic aspects of comprehension. Biological Psychology,21,83-105.

27.

Fischler, I. S., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. (1983).Brain potentials related to stage of sentence verification. Psychophysiology ,20,400-409.

28.

Ford, E. B. (2006). Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,29, 159-177.

29.

Furedy, J. J., Ben-Shakhar, G. B. (1991). The roles deception,intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge. Psychophysiology, 28,163-171.

30.

Gamer, M., Bauermann, T., Stoeter, P., & Vossel, G. (2007). Covariation samong fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information. Human Brain Mapping,28,1287-1301.

31.

Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S., Sotse, S., Thompson, W., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2003). Neuralcorrelates of different types of deception: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex,13,830-836.

32.

Goya-Maldonado, R., Walther, S., Simon, J., Stippich, C., Weisbrod, M., & Kaiser, S. (2010). Motor impulsivity and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Psychiatry Research,183,89-91.

33.

Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. New York:Cambridge University Press

34.

Greenhouse, W. W. & Geisser, S. (1959). Onmethods inthe analysis of profile data. Psychometrika,24, 95-112.

35.

Happel, M. D. (2005). Neuroscience and the detection of deception. Review of Policy Research, 22, 667-685

36.

Horn, N. R., Dolan, M., Elliott, R., Deakin, J. F. W., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2003). Response inhibition and impulsivity: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia,41,1959-1966.

37.

Kok, A., Ramautar, J. R., DeRuiters, M. B., Band, G. P. H., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2004). ERP components associated with successful and unsuccessful stopping in a stop-signal task. Psychophysiology,41,9-20.

38.

Kozel, M. A., Padgett, T. M., & George, M. S. (2004). A replication study ofthe neural correlates of deception.Behavioral Neuroscience,118,852-856.

39.

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading between the lines:Event-related brain potentials during natural sentence processing. Brain and Language, 11,354-373.

40.

Lee, T., Liu, H. L., Chan, C., Mahankali, S., Feng, C. M., Hou, J., Fox, P., & Gao, J. H. (2002). Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Human Brain Mapping,15,157-164

41.

MacLaren, V., & Taukulis, H. (2000). Forensic identification with event-related potentials, Polygraph,29,330-343.

42.

Menon, V., Adleman, N. E., White, C. D., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L., (2001). Error-related brain activation during aGo/NoGo Response inhibition task. Human Brain Mapping,12,131-143.

43.

Miller, G. R., deTurch, M. A., & Kalbfleisch, P. J. (1983). Self-monitoring rehearsal,and deceptive communication, Human Communication Research, 10,97-117.

44.

Morstyn, R., Duffy, F. H., & McCarley, R. W. (1983). Altered P300 topography in schizophrenia. Arch. General Psychiatry,40,729-734.

45.

Nakata, H., Inui, K., Wasaka, T., Akatsuka, K., & Kakigi, R. (2005). Somato-motor inhibitory processing in humans: A study with MEG and ERP. European Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1784-1792.

46.

Nakata, H., Sakamoto, K., Ferretti, A., Perrucci, M. G., Gratta, C. D., Kakigi, R., & Romani, G. L. (2008). Somato-motor inhibitory processing in humans: An event-related functional MRIstudy. Neuroimage,39,1858-1866.

47.

National Research Council.(2003).The poly graph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

48.

Neshige, R., & Luder, H. (1992). Recording of event-related potentials (P300) from human cortex. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology,9, 294-298.

49.

Parsons, T. E. (1996). Event-Related potentials and the detection of guilty knowledge. Doctor's thesis, Georgia University, Georgia,USA.

50.

Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology,9,456-479.

51.

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology,118, 2128-2148.

52.

Ramautar, J. R., Kok, A., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2004). Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm; The N2/P3 complex further validated. Brain and Cognition,56,234-252.

53.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. H. (1991). An ERP-based, control-question lie detector analog: Algorithms for discriminating effects within individuals' average waveforms, Psychophysiology,28,319-335.

54.

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.

55.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, B., 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.

56.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Nasman, V. T., Whalen, R., Cantwell, B., & Mazzeri, L. (1987). Late vertex positivity as aguilty knowledge indicator :A new methodof lie detection. International Journal of Neuroscience,34,125-129.

57.

Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E.(2007). Single versus multiple probe blocks of P300-based concealed information tests for self-referring versus incidentally obtained information. Biological Psychology,74,396-404.

58.

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.

59.

Seymour,T.L.,Seifert,C.M.,Shafto,M.G.,& Mosmann,A.L.(2000).Using response time measurestoassess"guiltyknowledge".Journalof AppliedPsychology,85,30-37.

60.

Smith, J. L., Johnston, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2006). Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: Response preparation,execution and inhibition. International Journal of Psychophysiology,61,121-133.

61.

Smith, J. L., Johnston, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2007). Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: The N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clinical Neurophysiology,118,343-355.

62.

Smith, M. E., Halgren, E., Sokolik, M., Baudena, P., Musolino, A., Liegeois-Chauvel, C., & Chauvel, P. (1990). The intracranial topography of the P3 event-related potential elicited during auditory oddball. Electroencephalogram and Clinical Neurophysiology,76,235-248.

63.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology,30,526-537.

64.

Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975). Decision-related cortical potentials during an auditory signal detection task with cued intervals, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,1,268-279.

65.

Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbaland nonverbal communication of deception. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격