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

Winograd, Michael R.; Rosenfeld, J. Peter

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.002

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is reasonable that this is so inasmuch as those subjects imagining their own involvement in the crime would be more likely to closely attend to crime details and thus find them more meaningful. It was indeed somewhat surprising that the probe‐minus‐irrelevant difference was so much greater in suspects than in witnesses, in view of our earlier report (Winograd & Rosenfeld, ) that informed innocent participants' P300s were almost as large as those of subjects who actually performed the mock crime. However, there was a major difference in participant treatment between the present report and that of klein Selle et al (): The present study and that of klein Selle imparted knowledge of the crime by having all subjects read a bogus newspaper article.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) study by klein Selle, Verschuere, Kindt, Meijer, & Ben Shakhar (2016), 15 participants pretended to perform a crime shown on a video, which 16 other participants pretended to witness. Both groups then experienced a P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT) protocol called the complex trial protocol. Both groups showed CIT effects, with a larger probe than irrelevant P300s at Pz. However, this effect was significantly larger in the suspect group. In contrast, only the suspect group showed delayed N200/N300 responses at F3-putative inhibitory signs. This supports the klein Selle et al. (2016) ANS study in that the suspect versus witness role-playing manipulation differentially affected inhibitory (vs. orienting) aspects of the CIT situation. Our results are also consistent with Ambach, Stark, Peper, & Vaitl (2008), who saw the same autonomic response fractionation as klein Selle et al., but using Furedy's differentiation of deception method (Furedy, Davis, & Gurevich, 1988). These similarities are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large number of previous CIT studies used multiple crime‐related details (such as the time, location, and instrument of a crime) as probe stimuli, yet a recent meta‐analysis demonstrated that the number of probes (questions) affects the efficacy of SCR‐based CIT but does not affect the efficacy of P300‐based CIT (Meijer et al, ). Numerous recent P300‐based lab CTP studies that used only one probe generated a satisfactory detection outcome (Deng et al, ; Rosenfeld et al, ; Winograd & Rosenfeld, ), but in the field more probes are desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior detection of information from collaborative versus individual crimes based on a P300 Concealed Information Test

Rosenfeld

Xiao-hong

et al. 2017

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used a P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT) to detect individual and collaborative crimes and to explore whether or not the P300 index is effective in identifying collaborative crime members. Participants were divided into two groups to either steal a ring alone (individual group) or collaboratively with another companion participant (collaborative group) before taking the Complex Trial Protocol test that is regarded as an accurate version of the P300-based CIT. The ERP results revealed that both groups showed significantly larger P300s to probe (the ring) than to all irrelevant stimuli (other jewelery), but the P300 amplitude difference of probe stimulus versus irrelevant stimuli in the collaborative group was significantly less than that in the individual group. For the individual diagnosis, using P300 index, the detection rate was significantly inferior for collaborative crime than individual crime, probably related to weakness of collaborative encoding. The ROC curve comparisons showed the individual guilty was effectively discriminated from the simulated-innocent (AUC = .84) and from the collaborative guilty (AUC = .83), but the collaborative guilty was not discriminable from the simulated-innocent (AUC = .66). These findings suggest that collaborative encoding of crime-related information impacts the efficiency of the P300 index, and that the P300-based CIT is not applicable when used to identify collaborative crime perpetrators.

show abstract

“…As several studies seemed to prove the CTP highly countermeasure-resistant (Hu et al, 2012;Labkovsky and Rosenfeld, 2012;Rosenfeld et al, 2008;Rosenfeld and Labkovsky, 2010;Winograd and Rosenfeld, 2011), more recent research focused on other areas (optimization of parameters, etc., Hu et al, 2013;Meixner and Rosenfeld, 2014;Rosenfeld et al, 2015aRosenfeld et al, , 2015bWinograd and Rosenfeld, 2014). However, these studies have been using two kinds of P300-based measurements for the classification of participants as guilty or innocent, namely, the "P vs.…”

Section: Uninvestigated Effects Of Countermeasuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The first independent study on the complex trial protocol version of the P300-based concealed information test: Corroboration of previous findings and highlights on vulnerabilities

Lukács

Weiss

Dalos

et al. 2016

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than a dozen studies of the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test have been published since its introduction (Rosenfeld et al., 2008), and it has been fairly consistently proven to provide high accuracy and strong resistance to countermeasures . However, no independent authors have verified these findings until now. In the present, first independent study, we corroborate the accuracy and countermeasure-resistance of the CTP, when the probe item (critical presented information, e.g., crime detail; P) vs. all irrelevant items (Iall) comparison is used for classifying participants as guilty or innocent, but we also show that the CTP is severely vulnerable to countermeasures, when the P vs. the irrelevant item with the largest P300 responses (Imax) comparison is used.This latter measure can be defeated by creating "oddball" items among the irrelevant items (through targeting them with covert responses), and thereby making their P300 responses statistically indistinguishable from those of the probe item. Practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 23 publications

References 38 publications

P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime

P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime

Inferior detection of information from collaborative versus individual crimes based on a P300 Concealed Information Test

The first independent study on the complex trial protocol version of the P300-based concealed information test: Corroboration of previous findings and highlights on vulnerabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About