The impact of prior knowledge from participant instructions in a mock crime P300 Concealed Information Test.

In P300-Concealed Information Tests used with mock crime scenarios, the amount of detail revealed to a participant prior to the commission of the mock crime can have a serious impact on a study's validity. We predicted that exposure to crime details through instructions would bias detection rates toward enhanced sensitivity. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, participants were either informed (through mock crime instructions) or naïve as to the identity of a to-be-stolen item, and then either committed (guilty) or did not commit (innocent) the crime. Results showed that prior knowledge of the stolen item was sufficient to cause 69% of innocent-informed participants to be incorrectly classified as guilty. Further, we found a trend toward enhanced detection rate for guilty-informed participants over guilty-naïve participants. Results suggest that revealing details to participants through instructions biases detection rates in the P300-CIT toward enhanced sensitivity.

Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information.

In this review, the evolution of new P300-based protocols for detection of concealed information is summarized. The P300-based complex trial protocol (CTP) is described as one such countermeasure (CM)-resistant protocol. Recent lapses in diagnostic accuracy (from 90% to 75%) with CTPs applied to mock crime protocols are summarized, as well as recent enhancements to the CTP which have restored accuracy. These enhancements include 1) use of performance feedback during testing, 2) use of other ERP components such as N200 in diagnosis, 3) use of auxiliary tests, including the autobiographical implicit association test, as leading to restored diagnostic accuracy, and 4) a study of the mechanisms underlying CMs. A novel, doubly efficient version of the CTP involving presentation of two probes in one trial is described as a new way to improve accuracy to levels above 90% in mock crime situations. Finally, a thorough analysis of the legal issues surrounding use of the CTP in U.S. is given.

Mock crime application of the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) P300-based concealed information test.

The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP), was shown to be an improvement over the previous "three stimulus" P300-based concealed information tests (CITs). Not only was it highly accurate with autobiographical information but was also resistant to the use of countermeasures (CMs). The current study applied the CTP to the detection of incidentally acquired information in a mock crime scenario. In previous "three stimulus" mock crime studies utilizing P300-based CITs, participants memorized a guilty knowledge item(s). Special care was taken in the current study to ensure that participants' knowledge of the guilty item in the mock crime was obtained only during the commission of the act in order to bolster ecological validity. Overall, 92% of all participants in guilty, innocent, and countermeasure conditions were correctly classified. CM use was again indexed by reaction times (RTs).

Assigned versus random, countermeasure-like responses in the p300 based complex trial protocol for detection of deception: task demand effects.

We recently introduced an accurate and countermeasure resistant P300-based deception detection test called the complex trial protocol (Rosenfeld et al. in Psychophysiology 45(6):906-919, 2008). When subjects use countermeasures to all irrelevant items in the test, the probe P300 is increased rather than reduced (as it was in previous P300-based deception protocols), allowing detection of countermeasure users. The current experiment examines the role of task demand on the complex trial protocol by forcing the subject to make countermeasure-like response to stimuli. Subjects made either a simple random button response to both probe and irrelevant stimuli (experiment 1) or a more complex, assigned, button response to probe and irrelevant stimuli (experiment 2). We found that an increase in task demand reduced the effectiveness of the test. Using random responses we found a simple guilty hit rate of 11/12 with no false positives, but only a 4/11 hit rate for countermeasure-users. Using assigned responses we found a simple guilty hit rate of 8/15 with no false positives, and a 7/16 hit rate for countermeasure-users. We herein suggest that the high level of task demand associated with these countermeasure-like responses causes reduced hit rates.