Countermeasures to P300-based Guilty Knowledge Tests of Deception

1
Countermeasures to P300-based Guilty Knowledge
Tests of Deception

• J.Peter Rosenfeld, Matt Soskins,Joanna Blackburn,
  Ann Mary Robertson
• Northwestern University.
• Supported by DoDPI

2
Some History (earliest publications)

• Rosenfeld et al., 1987,1988,1991
• Farwell and Donchin, 1991
• Allen, Iacono, Danielson, 1992
• Johnson and Rosenfeld, 1992
• Since we were there at beginning, why do we
  challenge now with countermeasures? (1) Its
  about time.

3
2) Farwells web page, claiming 100 accuracy
4
Stimuli

• Probes (P or R in figures) Items which subject
  is suspected of knowing (e.g., murder weapons).
  Subject denies(lies).
• Targets (TR) Items Items to which subject
  presses YES . (Benchmark P300).
• Irrelevants (I or W in figures) Items of which
  subject has no knowledge and denies, honestly, by
  pressing NO .

5
How P300 amplitude is supposed to catch Liars
1)PgtI (BAD) 2)P-TR corr gtP-I corr(BC-AD)
1)PI 2)P-I corr gtP-TR corr
6
Whither R-TR correlation if there are latency
differences?
Probe P3 Target P3
Nothing should happen to bootstrapped amplitude
difference test (BAD) but bootstrapped
cross-correlation test (BC-AD) should fail.
7
Experiment 1, based on Farwell Donchin (1991)

• --6 Different Probes
• --Innocent, Guilty, and Countermeasure(CM) Groups
• --Countermeasure Associate various latent
  responses to different categories (jewelry type,
  drawer color, operation name, etc.), all
  irrelevant members of the category.
• --Off the Street subjects (Psych 101).

8
General Instructions.

• Mock crime scenario
• Press Yes to Targets (on list)
• Press No to all other stimuli (Possibly guilty
  probes and Irrelevants).

9
More simply.

• Probe Target I1 I2 I3 I4 ring
  bracelet necklace watch broach tiara
• pink brown yellow purple red
  blue
• donkey tiger lion cow pig
  horse
• etc., etc... (only half the matrix
  here.)
• All these are shuffled, presented in random
  order, involving 4 repetitions of each item.

10
What are the covert countermeasures for the 6
categories of 6 probes?

• 1) Jewelry category.micro right finger wiggle
• 2) drawer lining category. left
  
• 3) owners name category. toe
  
• 4) operation name category right
• 5) location of item category Imagine professor
  slaps you
• 6) desktop categoryDo Nothing
• I.e., make irrelevants into relevant targets.

11
Guilty group Probe(R) gt Irrelevant (W).
R gt W
12
Guilty Group TR vs R
Both have P300
13
Innocent Group R vs W
Both lack P300
14
Innocent Group TR vs R
TR towers over P (R)
15
CM Group R vs W
No difference P(R) vs I (W)
16
CM Group Tr vs R
Target gt Probe
17
Results, Exp. 1 CM works, and analysis method
matters
Diagnoses of Guilty
Amplitude Difference (BAD) method,p.1
Innocent Group
Guilty Group
CM Group
9/11(82)
1/11(9)
2/11(18)
Cross-Correlation(BC-AD) Method, p.1
6/11(54)
0/11(0)
6/11(54)
--with Off the street subjects see next 2
slides.

18
Guilty Subject, probe(R) vs irrelevant(W)
R gtgt W subject clearly guilty
19
but clear latency shift in TR and R P300s
..so BC-AD fails, BAD catches the S.
20
Do Reaction Times help?
CM Group
Guilty Group
9/10 90 BAD
3/10 30 BART
These are guilty calls based on
bootstrapped (Probe-Irrelevant) RTs, at p .05
.
Bootstrapped Analysis of RT difference, R-W.
21
Absolute Irrel. RTs for CM and Inno. Groups
overlap.
..and 3 fastest CM-ers beat tes, 3 slowest did not
I.e., they dont help either.
22
Experiment 2 The one probe protocol (Rosenfeld
et al., 1991).

• 100 simpler to conceptualize
• There are 6 items, repeated 30-40 times
  randomly, consisting of..
• A probe, subject maybe guilty,
• A target to force attention (not really necessary
  but allows us to test Farwell cross-correlation
  method vs. ours.)
• 4 irrelevants.

23
Standard autobiographical oddball paradigm.

• 6 dates are presented, one is the birth date.
• 5 other dates with no personal significance, one
  is a target, four are irrelevant.
• Subject is feigning head injury, the inability
  to recognize birth date 50 of the time, so he
  presses yes and no to all dates on 50-50 basis.

24
Design

• One group of advanced Ss run in 3 successive
  weeks. (Also Control group.)
• Week 1 All naïve(about CM) and guilty (of having
  birth date and recognizing it despite overt lies.
• Week 2 Use explicit countermeasure (to be
  explained).
• Week 3 Repeat first week, stop the CM.

25
Whats the CM?

• When you see the first Irrelevant, do micro left
  finger wiggle.
• When you see second Irrelevant, do micro right
  toe wiggle.
• When you see third irrelevant, imagine me
  slapping your face.
• When you see fourth Irrelevant, do nothing.
• I.e., make irrels. into rel. targets.

26
Results, week 1(guilty) Probe(R) vs.Irrelevant
(W)
As usual, RgtgtW
27
Week 1 Probe(R) and Target(TR)
Both have nice P3
28
Week 2 Explicit CM, R v W
Not so different anymore...
29
Week 3 5/12 test beaters(effortless), R v W
Surprise! R W
30
Week 3 5/12 test beaters, R v TR--classic
defeats
..and TR gtgt R as with innocents.
31
Exp. 2 quantitative.

• WK BAD BC-AD
• no CM 12/13(.92) 9/13(.69)
• CM 6/12(.50) 3/12(.25)
• no CM 7/12(.58) 3/12(.25)
• (Control group nothing much happened over 3
  weeks of repeating week 1.)

32
RTs for 3 weeks week 1 week 3, proving CM not
used in week 3.
33
Irrelevant RTs, with and without CM. No overlap!
34
But in week 3, RT no help, as we saw...
35
Overall amplitude effects...
36
Conclusions, bottom lines..

• 6-probe protocol beat-able, RT is no help, and
  the 6 probe combination lacks a real rationale
  anyway. (Lykken wouldnt like?)
• 1-probe protocol may be explicitly beat-able, but
  the very slow Irrelevant RT distribution will
  raise suspicions. 1 probe per run is more
  Lykkenable.
• BUT---1-probe paradigm after CM practice is
  beat-able, period.

37
What to do?

• We have found(submitted) that within individuals,
  the scaled scalp distribution method detects 73
  (not great) using statistical criteria yielding 0
  false positives.
• This method should be worked on, because there is
  no obvious CM as there is with simple amplitude.