Moderate financial incentive does not appear to influence the P300 Concealed Information Test (CIT) effect in the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) version of the CIT in a forensic scenario, while affecting P300 peak latencies and behavior

2018 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Peter Rosenfeld ◽  
Evan Sitar ◽  
Joshua Wasserman ◽  
Anne Ward
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gáspár Lukács ◽  
Huszár Katalin ◽  
Vera Daniella Dalos ◽  
Tünde Kilencz ◽  
Szabina Tudja ◽  
...  

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 (Rosenfeld et al., 2013). 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.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gáspár Lukács ◽  
Alicja Grządziel ◽  
Marleen Kempkes ◽  
Ulrich Ansorge

In this study, we introduced familiarity-related inducer items (expressions referring to the participant’s self-related, familiar details: “mine,” “familiar”; and expressions referring to other, unfamiliar details, e.g., “other,” “irrelevant”) to the Complex Trial Protocol version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT), at the same time using different item categories with various levels of personal importance to the participants (forenames, birthdays, favorite animals). The inclusion of inducers did not significantly improve the overall efficiency of the method as we would have expected considering that these inducers should increase awareness of the denial of the recognition of the probes (the true details of the participants), and hence the subjective saliency of the items (Lukács, Kleinberg, & Verschuere, 2017). This may be explained by the visual similarity of inducers to the probe and irrelevant items and the consequent distracting influence of inducers on probe-task performance. On the other hand, the CIT effect (probe-irrelevant P300 differences) was always lower for less personally important (low-salient) and higher for more personally important (high-salient) items.


Author(s):  
Ann Hsu ◽  
Yu-Hui Lo ◽  
Shi-Chiang Ke ◽  
Lin Lin ◽  
Philip Tseng

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document