We found countermeasures to protocols using P300 in concealed information tests. One, the "six-probe" protocol, in Experiment 1, uses six different crime details in one run. The countermeasure: generate covert responses to irrelevant stimuli for each probe category. Hit rates were 82% in the guilty group; 18% in the countermeasure group. The average reaction time (RT) distinguished these two groups, but with overlap in RT distributions. The "one-probe" protocol, in the second experiment, uses one crime detail as a probe. Here, one group was run in 3 weeks as a guilty group, a countermeasure group, and again as in Week 1. COUNTERMEASURE: Covert responses to irrelevant stimuli. In Week 1, hit rate was 92%. In Week 2, it was 50%. In Week 3, 58%. There was no overlap in the irrelevant RT distribution in Week 2: Countermeasure use was detectable. However, in Week 3, the RT distributions resembled those of Week 1; test-beaters could not be caught. These studies have shown that tests of deception detection based on P300 amplitude as a recognition index may be readily defeated with simple countermeasures that can be easily learned.

No abstract

A new P300-based concealed information test is described. A rare probe or frequent irrelevant stimulus appears in the same trial in which a target or nontarget later appears. One response follows the first stimulus and uses the same button press regardless of stimulus type. A later second stimulus then appears: target or nontarget. The subject presses one button for a target, another for a nontarget. A P300 to the first stimulus indicates probe recognition. One group was tested in 3 weeks for denied recognition of familiar information. Weeks 1 and 3 were guilty conditions; Week 2 was a countermeasure (CM) condition. The probe-irrelevant differences were significant in all weeks, and percent hits were 490%. Attempted CM use was detectable via elevated reaction time to the first stimulus. In a replication, results were similar. False positive rates for both studies varied from 0 to .08, yielding J. B. Grier (1971) A 0 values from .9 to 1.0.

Subjects chose and pretended to steal one object from a box of nine. They then watched a visual display of verbal representations of objects including their chosen object or one of eight novel objects on each trial. They were told to count one of the novel objects and that although they were welcome to try to beat our test, they would be unable to avoid noticing the chosen object. P3 responses were obtained only to counted and to chosen objects in 7 of 10 subjects not eliminated for artifact or noncooperation.

Two experimental, P3-based analog control question tests were run. In both, guilty subjects were presented with a set of seven phrases describing antisocial acts of which they were innocent, plus one phrase describing a guilty act (the analog relevant question), and one act to which a "yes" response (yes-target stimulus) was required to assure attention. Innocent subjects (run only in Experiment 1) saw all innocent acts plus the yes-target act. Thus nine acts were seen by guilty and innocent subjects. In both experiments, all subjects had to selectively review their guilty acts privately. Also in both experiments, all subjects were especially questioned about four acts of which guilty subjects were known to be innocent of all but one, and of which innocent subjects were known to be innocent of all. (These falsely accused acts were regarded as control question analogs.) In Experiment 1, the private review and rehearsal took place on the same day as the main test. In Experiment 2, one subgroup (delay-only) of guilty subjects was run as in Experiment 1, except that the private review-rehearsal was separated from the main run by 7-14 days. Another subgroup (delay-rehearsal) of guilty subjects was run just as was the subgroup delay-only, except that the delay-rehearsal subgroup additionally received a non-selective additional interrogation/rehearsal on the delayed main run day. Parietally maximal P3 responses were obtained to yes-target items in all groups. In Experiment 1, only in the guilty group was the relevant-minus-control P3 amplitude difference significant. In Experiment 2, the difference was significant only in the delay-rehearsal subgroup. A four-step algorithm (involving relevant-control amplitude differences and relevant target vs. control-target cross-correlations) was used to assess effects within individuals. In Experiment 1, 12 of 13 guilty subjects and 13 of 15 innocent subjects were correctly diagnosed. In Experiment 2, 3 of 8 delay-only subjects and 7 of 8 delay-rehearsal subjects were correctly diagnosed. In Experiment 2, the relevant-minus-control group P3 amplitude difference was significant in the delay-rehearsal but not in the delay-only subgroup. The results suggest that temporally proximal, non-selective rehearsal procedures are sufficient to activate personal knowledge of a salient (oddball), P3-generating stimulus phrase, and that even selective rehearsal of guilty acts is not sufficient without temporal proximity.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract