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
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.

21
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.

22
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.

23
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.

24
Results, week 1(guilty) Probe(R) vs.Irrelevant
(W)
As usual, RgtgtW
25
Week 1 Probe(R) and Target(TR)
Both have nice P3
26
Week 2 Explicit CM, R v W
Not so different anymore...
27
Week 3 5/12 test beaters(effortless), R v W
Surprise! R W
28
Week 3 5/12 test beaters, R v TR--classic
defeats
..and TR gtgt R as with innocents.
29
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.)

30
RTs for 3 weeks week 1 week 3, proving CM not
used in week 3.
31
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.

32
Farwell (SPR 08) didnt agree
33
But at the meeting, his letter, not he, showed up
34
What to do?

• Go to a new paradigmthe Complex Trial Protocol
  (Rosenfeld et al., 2008)