Detection of concealed information using event-related potentials

Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
Advisors (or tutors)
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Existe un interés considerable en hallar métodos que nos ayuden a saber cuándo una persona miente y cuándo dice la verdad desde un punto de vista forense. Actualmente, una de las líneas de investigación se inclina hacia el uso de potenciales relacionados con eventos. Se pretende hacer una revisión de los artículos que estudian estos procedimientos mediante distintos métodos: propiedades, fiabilidad, validez y limitaciones. Los resultados indican tasas de acierto en la discriminación de culpables en un rango de 7 al 100 por ciento, y en la de inocentes de 31 a 100 por ciento. La gran variabilidad y la posibilidad de “falsear” las respuestas llevan a cuestionar la inexactitud utilizada en algunos círculos mediáticos respecto a las cualidades y finalidades de dicha prueba. Se concluye la necesidad de profundizar más la posibilidad de que esta prueba sea utilizada con fines forenses.
There is a considerable interest in finding methods that help us to know when a person is lying and when is telling the truth from a forensic point of view. Currently, one of the lines of research leans toward the use of event-related potentials. We intend to give a brief objective review of articles studying these procedures using different methods: properties, reliability, validity, and limitations. Results indicate success rates in discriminating the guilty in a range of 7 to 100 percent, and the not-guilty ones from 31 to 100 percent. The great variability and the ability to “distort” the answers lead to question the inaccuracy used in some media circles about the qualities and purposes of the test. The need to deepen the possibility that this test is used for forensic purposes is concluded.
Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M.H., & Khalilzadeh, M.A. (2006). A comparison of methods for ERP assessment in a P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62(2), 309-320. [pdf] Allen, J.B.B., & Mertens, R. (2009). Limitations to the detection of deception: True and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event-related potential procedure. Social Neuroscience, 4(6), 473-490. [PubMed] Alonso, E., Álvarez, M et. al. Uso de Potenciales relacionados a eventos para el diagnóstico y seguimiento de los trastornos subclínicos de la atención sostenida en la enfermedad cerebro vascular isquémica. Revista de Neurologia. 34(11) 1017-1020. 2002. Amoruso L, Sedeño L, Huepe D, Tomio A, Kamienkowsky J, Hurtado E, Cardona JF, Alvarez M, Reiznik A, Sigman M, Manes F, Ibañez A. Time to tango. Neuroimage. Aceptado Neuroimage 2014 Amoruso, L Gelormini C,1,3 Aboitiz F , Alvarez M , Manes F , . Cardona JF , Ibanez A , N400 ERPs for actions: building meaning in context-Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7: 57. Ben-Shakhar, G. (2012). Current research and potential applications of the concealed information test: an overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 342. [pdf] Champadi R.Mukundan. Electronic investigative device and method for identifying the truth. PCT/IN2008/000344. Chapman, R.M. & Bragdon, H.R. (1964). Evoked responses to numerical and non-numerical visual Church, D.J. (2012). Neuroscience in the courtroom: An international concern. William and Mary Law Review, 53(5), 1825-1854. [pdf] Comerchero, M. D.; Polich, J. (1999). "P3a and P3b from typical auditory and visual stimuli". Clinical Neurophysiology 110 (1): 24–30. Donchin E, Heffley EF. The independence of the P300 and the CNV reviewed: a reply to Wastell. Biol Psychol. 1979 Nov; 9(3):177-88. Donchin E, Spencer KM, Wijesinghe R, “The Mental Prosthesis: Assessing the Speed of a P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface” IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 8(2) Jun 2000 Donchin, E. (1981). "Presidential Address, 1980: Surprise!...Surprise?." Psychophysiology 18(5): 493-513. Donchin, E., Spencer, K.M., Wijesinghe, R.2000. "The Mental Prosthesis: Assessing the Speed of a P300- based brain computer interface." IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 8, 174-179. Eysenck, M.W. (2010). Testimonio de testigos en A. Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M.W., y Anderson, M.C. (Eds.), Memoria (pp. 351-376). Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Farwell LA, Smith SS, "Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal." J Forensic Sci 46 (1): 135-143 Jan 2001. Farwell, L.A y Donchin, E., “Talking off the top of your head: A mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 70, pp. 5 Farwell, L.A. & Richardson, D.C. (2013). Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin. Cognitive Neurodynamics,7,159-166. [pdf] Farwell, L.A. (2012). Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 6(2), 115-154. [pdf] Farwell, L.A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531-547. [pdf] Farwell, L.A., Richardson, D.C., & Richardson, G.M. (2013). Brain fingerprinting studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information. Cognitie Neurodynamics, 7, 263-299. [pdf] Hansenne M, “The P300 event-related potential. II. Interindividual variability and clinical application in psychopathology.” Clinl Neurophysiol 30 (4): 211-231 Aug 2000 10–523, 1988 Iacono, W.G.,2008. The forensic application of “Brain Fingerprinting: “ why scientists should encourage the use of P300 Memory Detection Methods. Journal of Bioethics, January (8) 1 Johnson Jr., R., Pfefferbaum, A., & Koppel, B.S. (1985). P300 and long-term memory: Latency predicts recognition performance. Psychophysiology, 22(5), 497-507. [pdf] Johnson, Nolde, Mather, Kounios, Schacter y Curran, (1997) Kotchoubey B. Event-related potentials, Cognition and behavior: a biological approach. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2006, 30: 42-65. Kutas M. Views on how the electrical activity that the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structures. Psychophysiology 1997 Jul;34(4):383-98. Review Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. American Psychologist, 29, 725-739. Lykken, D.T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385-388. Lykken, D.T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258-262. Lykken, D.T. (1978). Uses and abuses of the polygraph. In: H.L. Pick (Ed.), Psychology: From research to practice. New York: Plenum Press. Makeig T. H., 2005. Brain Fingerprinting Testing in the Case of Harrington vs State. Open Court X, 3´7-10 . Indiana State Bar Association. Marti S, Álvarez M, Simoneau-Roy J, Leroux S, Van Vliet G, Robaey P: Effects of Early High-Dose Levothyroxine Treatment on Auditory Brain Event-Related Potentials at School Entry in Children with Congenital Hypothyroidism. Hormone Research 2006; 66:240-248. Matsuda, I., Nittono, H., Allen, J.J.B. (2012). The current and future status of the concealed information test for field use. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 352. [pdf] Meijer, E.H., Ben-Shakhar, G., Verschuere, B. & Donchin, E. (2013). A comment on Farwell (2012): brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial of detection of concealed information with event- related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 7, 155-158. [pdf] Meijer, E.H., Smulders, F.T.Y., & Wolf, A. (2009). The contribution of mere recognition to the P300 effect in a concealed information test. Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, 34, 221.226. [pdf] Mertens, R., & Allen, J.J.B. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: Deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45, 286-298. [PubMed] Miller, A.R., Baratta, C., Wynveen, C., & Rosenfeld, J.P. (2001). P300 latency, but not amplitude or topography, distinguishes between true and false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(2), 354-361. [PubMed] Miyake, Y., Mizutanti, M., & Yamahura, T. (1993). Event related potentials as an indicator of detecting information in field polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 22, 131–149. [abstract] Nijboer F, Sellers EW, Mellinger J et al. “A P300-based brain–computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis” Clinical Neurophysiology 119: 1909–1916 Nolde, F., Mather, M., Kounios, J., Schacter, D, Curran, T. 1997. The similarity of brain activity with true and false recognition memory depends on test format- Psychological Sciences (8), 250-257 Piccione F, Giorgi F, Tonin P, et al. “P300-based brain computer interface: Reliability and performance in healthy and paralysed participants” Clinical Neurophysiology 117 (3): 531-537 Mar 2006 Picton, T.W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9(4), 456-479. [PubMed] Picton, T.W., Hillyard, S.A., 1988. Endogenous event-related potentials. In: Picton, T.W. (Ed.), Human Event-Related Potentials. Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 361–426. Polich, J. (2003). Overview of P3a and P3b. In J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change:Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings (pp. 83-98). Kluwer Academic Press: Boston. Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148. Posner M.I. (1978) Chronometric explorations of mind. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ. Rosenfeld, J. P., Nasman, V. T., Whalen, I., Cantwell, B., & Mazzeri, L. (1987). Late vertex positivity in event-related potentials as a guilty knowledge indicator: A new method of lie detection. International Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 125–129. [PubMed] Rosenfeld, J.P. (2005). ‘Brain fingerprinting’: A critical analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4(1), 20-37. [pdf] 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. [pdf] Rosenfeld,J.P.; Hu,X.; Labkovsky,E.; Meixner,J.; Winograd,M.R. (2013). Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90(2), 118-134. [ScienceDirect] Rugg, M.D. and Barret, S. E. (1987) Event-related potentials and interaction between orthographic and phonological information in rhyme-judgement task Brain and Language, 32, 336-61. Rugg, M.D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 251-257. [ScienceDirect] Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic Books. Schacter, D.L., Buckner, R.L., Koustaal, W., Dale, A.M., Rosen, (1997). Memory's echo: Vivid remembering reactivates sensory-specific cortex. PNAS, 97, 11125–11129 Schacter, D.L., Reiman, T., Curran, L.S., Yein Bandy, R., McDermott, K.B. y Roedigger,H.L. 1996; Cognitive Neuroscience. MIT Press Squires, N.K., Squires, K.C., & Hillyard, S.A. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 38, 387-401. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E.R. (1965). Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science, 150, 1187-1188. Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., & John, E.R. (1967). Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science, 155, 1436-1439. Wolpe, P.R., Foster, K., & Langleben, D.D. (2005). Emerging technologies for lie detection: promises and perils. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 39-49.