Download P300CITsoldstudies - Northwestern University

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Psychometrics wikipedia, lookup

Deception wikipedia, lookup

Lie wikipedia, lookup

Lie detection wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
ERPs in Deception,
Malingering, and False
Memory
J. Peter Rosenfeld
Psychology Department
Northwestern University
Evanston Illinois,USA
Principal Collaborators
•
•
•
•
•
Joel Ellwanger
Tuti Reinhart Miller
Archana Rao
Matt Soskins
Greg Bosh
• Many of the original ideas here were
theirs.
A simple neural code
Event-related potentials
P300 Attributes:
• An Endogenous, Event-Related
Potential (ERP)
• Positive polarity (down in Illinois).
• Latency range: 300-1000 msec
– varies with stimulus complexity/evaluation
time
• Typical Scalp Amplitude(Amp) Map
– Pz > Cz > Fz
• Amp = f(stim. probability, meaning)
P300 at 3 scalp sites
P300 amplitude as recognition
index
• Autobiographical items (previous slide)
• Guilty Knowledge test items (Rosenfeld
et al., 1988)
• Antisocial/illegal acts in employee
screening (Rosenfeld et al., 1991).
• Matches to samples in tests of
malingered cognitive deficits
Normals: autobiog. oddball
CHI patients: autobiog.
oddball
Individual detection rates for
various stimuli (normal
simulators).
E-Name forgetters(oddball is
dark line)
Screening example
Autobiographical paradigm
has limitations in detecting
malingerers
• Most malingerers are not so
unsophisticated as to verbally state that
they don’t recall, say, their birthdate,
when in fact they may have just filled
out a card in which they provided that
information.
•
Continuation…
• The behavioral “MDMT” was developed
as an entrapment test to catch these
people. It’s a simple matching-tosample test: A sample 3-digit number is
presented followed either by a match or
mismatch.
Simple MDMT paradigm:
• There is a 5-15 second interval between
sample and probe. This is an easy task,
yielding 100% performance even in
patients with moderate head injury-unless, oddly enough, they happen to be
in litigation !
• Where does one set the threshold for
diagnosis of malingering? 90%? (Some
non-litigating malingerers score well
below 90%, as we’ll see.)
Behavioral MDMT not reliable:
Some non-litigating pts. fail
Souped-up MDMT: simple
version
• “Simple” means only one probe
stimulus per sample.
• P300 is recorded as soon as the probe -match or mismatch-- is presented.
• Match probability is kept low.
• RESULTS------------>
Match-To-Sample example
Computer-plotted data:
What would 75%-HITTING
plaintiff’s lawyer say?
• “Sure, my client scores 75% correct and
his P300 to matches is bigger than to
mismatches. But that’s because he
mostly DOES make the correct
discrimination--but 75% is still less than
normal. Therefore, give us the money
(me, one-third).”
•
Continuation…
• We did 2 experiments: 1) If a malingerer
aims to score 75% correct, whither
P300? 2) What happens to P300 with a
really tough discrimination?
Manipulated 75% “hit” rate
produces a larger P300….
100%
100%
Experiment 2: Difficult tasks: 7
and 9 digit numbers, match to
sample.
P300 wiped out in difficult
task, at 75%, even at
accuracy> 90%
Simple P3-MDMT summary:
• If one fakes 75% hits, one’s P300 gets
bigger(or doesn’t change).
• If one has genuine difficulty--honest
75%--then P300 is totally removed.
• These findings should allow
discrimination of normals, malingerers,
real deficit(pts).
• BUT…diagnostic hit rate only 70% !!
Scalp Distribution
• For P300, Pz > Cz > Fz, usually, but…
• There are many ways that this can be
so:
SITE
AMP
Fz
Cz
Pz
Cz
Fz
Pz
lie
SITES
truth
AMP
Fz
Cz
Pz
Match-to-Sample Test:
advanced version
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
386 sample
212
457
386 (*)
789
325
123
Stimulus-Response Types
• Match(R) probe
– “Match” (RR--honest/correct)
– “Mismatch” (RW--dishonest/error)
• Mismatch(W) probe
– “Mismatch” (WW--honest/correct)
– “Match” (WR--dishonest/error)
ERPs in Liar Group to R and
W
Deception swamps out R/W
effect
“Profiles” of Deception
Truth vs Lie Groups
Deception overcomes
paradigm effects
Specificity (“Pinnochio”)
• Simple Truth vs. Lie Groups differ in
task demands.
• This is not relevant for practical field
detection.
• It is relevant for claims pertaining to a
specific lie response.
• How do you make a “perfect” control
group?
An imperfect(but not bad)
control
Two groups run in two trial blocks of
autobiog. oddball: [1. Phone #, 2. Bday]
• Lie Group
– Block 1 : Respond truthfully, repeat forwards.
– Block 2: Lie 50% of time, repeat forwards.
• Control Group
– Block 1: Respond truthfully, repeat forwards.
– Block 2: Respond truthfully, repeat
backwards(50%).
Only lying liars stick out.
Same result with simple truth
control
Lie Response<>Truth
Response; Psychopathy is
irrelevant(swamped).
Psychopathy Effect is
frontal,late(?)
Cz
Fz
Pz
EOG
1.88 V
400 ms
F3
F4
P3
P4
Figure 1A
False(honestly
believed)memories:
• Deese/Roediger paradigm
– Presented words at study: sleep, bed,
dream,blanket,pajamas,dark….
– Not presented word: night.
• Test words:
– night-- a critical LURE--> possible
responses: “Old” or “New”
– bed-- an actual memory word “Old”
– table-- a completely new word “New”
Profiles depend on belief:
Replication data: almost ditto
P300 Latency is the
unconscious recognizer
Replication data: ditto !
What’s next?
• What does Malingered “false” memory
look like?
• Again, what happens as sites are
added?
• ________________________________
• [email protected]