The new complex trial protocol for deception detection with p300 mock crime anti terror scenarios
Download
1 / 43

The New Complex Trial Protocol for Deception Detection with P300: Mock Crime anti-terror ScenarioS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 221 Views
  • Uploaded on

The New Complex Trial Protocol for Deception Detection with P300: Mock Crime & anti-terror ScenarioS. J. Peter Rosenfeld, John Meixner, Michael Winograd, Elena Labkovsky, Alex Haynes, Northwestern University. The Complex Trial Protocol is a brain-wave-based Concealed Information Test (CIT).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The New Complex Trial Protocol for Deception Detection with P300: Mock Crime anti-terror ScenarioS' - leigh


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The new complex trial protocol for deception detection with p300 mock crime anti terror scenarios l.jpg

The New Complex Trial Protocol for Deception Detection with P300: Mock Crime & anti-terror ScenarioS

J. Peter Rosenfeld, John Meixner, Michael Winograd, Elena Labkovsky, Alex Haynes, Northwestern University


The complex trial protocol is a brain wave based concealed information test cit l.jpg
The Complex Trial Protocol is a brain-wave-based Concealed Information Test (CIT).

  • AKA—”Guilty Knowledge” Test.

  • Physiological responses accompany recognition of information known only by guilty perps and authorities.

  • Responses are traditionally Autonomic –HR, GSR—but we use brain waves:


P300 attributes l.jpg
P300 Attributes: Information Test (CIT).

  • An Endogenous, Event-Related Potential (ERP)

  • Positive polarity (down in Illinois).

  • Amp = f(1/[stim. Probability], meaningfulness)


P300 at 3 scalp sites l.jpg
P300 at 3 scalp sites Information Test (CIT).


Old 3 stimulus p300 based cit gkt l.jpg
OLD 3-STIMULUS, P300-BASED CIT (GKT) Information Test (CIT).

PROBE: GUILTY KNOWLEDGE ITEM: $5000

Press non-target button.

IRRELEVANT: OTHER AMOUNT: $200

Press non-target button.

TARGET: OTHER AMOUNT: $3000

Press target button.


Slide8 l.jpg

Previous P300 DD protocols used Separate Probe(P),Irrelevant(I) and Target(T) trials.

  • 80% to 95% correct detection rates….but….

    *Rosenfeld et al. (2004) and Mertens, Allen et al. (2008):These methods are vulnerable to Counter-measures (CMs)

    via turning I’s into covert T’s.


Slide9 l.jpg

How to do CMs: Probe(P),Irrelevant(I) and Target(T) trials.

  • When you see a specific irrelevant, SECRETLY make some specific response, mental/physical.

  • After all, if you can make special response to TARGET on instruction from operator, you can secretly instruct yourself.

  • Irrelevant becomes secret target. It makes big P300. If P = I, no diagnosis.


Old 3 stimulus p300 protocol l.jpg
Old “3 stimulus”P300 Protocol Probe(P),Irrelevant(I) and Target(T) trials.

  • 2 tasks for each trial:

  • 1. implicit probe recognition vs.

  • 2. explicit Target/Non-Target discrimination

    Hypothesized Result: Mutual Interference of 2 tasks more task demand  reduced P300 to P. CMs hurt Old test.


Slide11 l.jpg

Farwell’s web page, claiming 100% accuracy: Probe(P),Irrelevant(I) and Target(T) trials.


Slide12 l.jpg

Results Probe(P),Irrelevant(I) and Target(T) trials.from Rosenfeld et al. (2004): Farwell-Donchin paradigm

(BAD and BCAD are 2 analysis methods.)

Diagnoses of Guilty

Amplitude Difference (BAD) method,p=.1

Innocent Group

Guilty Group

CM Group

1/11(9%)

9/11(82%)

2/11(18%)

Cross-Correlation(BC-AD) Method, p=.1

0/11(0%)

6/11(54%)

6/11(54%)


Slide13 l.jpg

Results (hit rates) from Rosenfeld et al. (2004): Rosenfeld paradigm

WeekBAD*BC-AD*

1: no CM 12/13(.92) 9/13(.69)

2: CM 6/12(.50) 3/12(.25)

3: no CM 7/12(.58) 3/12(.25)

*Note: BC-AD and BAD are 2 kinds of analytic bootstrap procedures.



New complex trial protocol ctp16 l.jpg
New Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) paradigm

  • 2 stimuli, separated by about 1 s, per trial,

  • S1; Either P or I…..then…..S2 ; either T or NT.

    *There is no conflicting discrimination task when P is presented, so P300 to probe is expected to be as large as possible due to P’s salience, which should lead to good detection; 90-100 % in Rosenfeld et al.(2008) with autobiographical information. It is also CM resistant. (Delayed T/NT still holds attention.)

    * “I saw it” response to S1. RT indexes CM use.


Slide17 l.jpg

Main Study. Within-subject correct detections of guilty subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe P300 against the average of all irrelevant P300s over 3 weeks.

  • WEEKHit Rate

  • Week 1 (no CM): 11/12 (92%)

  • Week 2 (CM): 10/11 (91%)

  • Week 3 (no CM): 11/12 (92%)


Exp 1 how does this ctp do in detecting incidental mock crime details l.jpg
EXP 1 subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe :How does this CTP do in detecting incidental mock crime details?

  • 3 groups (n=12)

    • Simple Guilty (SG), Countermeasure (CM), Innocent Control (IC)

    • All subjects first participated in a baseline reaction time (RT) test in which they chose a playing card.

  • SG and CM subjects then committed a mock crime.

    • Subjects stole a ring out of an envelope in a professor’s mailbox.

  • All subjects were then tested for knowledge of the item that was stolen. There were 1 P (the ring) and 6 I( necklace,watch,etc).

    • CM subjects executed covert assigned responses to irrelevant stimuli in an attempt to evoke P300s to these stimuli to try and beat the Probe vs. Irrelevant P300 comparison.


A ctp trial l.jpg
A CTP Trial subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe


Results grand averages sg cm ic all p l.jpg
Results: Grand Averages: subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe SG, CM, IC, all P


Guilty diagnoses l.jpg
Guilty Diagnoses subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe

  • Condition Detections Percentage

    SG 10/12 83

    CM 12/12 100

    IC 1/12 8


Rts to s1 p or i l.jpg
RTs to S1 (P or I) subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe


Conclusions l.jpg
Conclusions subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe

  • Unlike 3-SP, the CTP is highly sensitive at detecting incidentally acquired concealed knowledge in a mock-crime (as with autobiographical knowledge).

  • Another advantage of the CTP vs 3-SP or polygraph CIT: resistance to CM use.

  • CM use produces a large increase in RT between the baseline and test block, and within test block, probe vsirrelevant RT.


Enhanced ctp with autobiographical information l.jpg
Enhanced CTP with autobiographical information. subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe

  • 5-button ‘I SAW it’ box. The subject is instructed to press, at random*, one of the 5 buttons.

    We hoped that this would make CMs harder to do. It didn’t, but we caught the CM users anyway.


Design l.jpg
Design: subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe

  • Autobiographical information (birthdates): One P and 4 I (other, non-meaningful dates).

  • 3 Groups as before: SG,CM, IC.

  • NEW: mental CMs to only 2 of the 4 Irrelevants: Say to yourself your first name OR your last name. These are assigned prior to run.

  • Only one block per group (no baseline).


Results grand averages pz 2 uv division l.jpg
Results: Grand Averages ( subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe Pz, 2 uV/ division)


Detection rates l.jpg
Detection rates: subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe

  • GroupBT/Iall.9BT/Imax.9

    SG 13/13 (100%) 13/13 (100%)

    IC 1/13 (7.6%) 1/13 (7.6%)

    CM 12/12 (100%) 10/12 (83%)

    RT still nicely represents CM use within a block.


New erp p900 the cm potential largest at fz cz p black iall red 2uv division l.jpg
New ERP: “P900—the CM potential” :largest at subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe Fz, Cz(P=black, Iall=red, 2uV/division)


Rt results l.jpg
RT results subjects based on bootstrap comparison of probe





A mock terrorism study l.jpg

A Mock Terrorism Study total stimuli

John Meixner & Peter Rosenfeld

How do you catch bad guys before crimes are committed, and before you know what was done, where, when?


Model of terror act planning scenario l.jpg
Model of Terror Act Planning Scenario total stimuli

+Experimental guilty subjects come to lab and study 3 brochures dealing with pros & cons of 1) What CITY to attack, 2) What METHOD to use, 3) What DATE to attack on for later 3 blocks of CTP tests.

+ Then they write letter to boss with recommendations.

+ Innocent controls study vacation brochures, write recommendation letter to parents/room-mates.


Slide36 l.jpg

A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-based Concealed Information Test

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL


Slide37 l.jpg

Table 1. Individual bootstrap detection rates. Numbers indicate the average number of iterations (across all three blocks) of the bootstrap process in which probe was greater than Iall or Imax. Blind Imax numbers indicate the average number of iterations in which the largest single item (probe or irrelevant) was greater than the second largest single item. Mean values for each column are displayed in bold above detection rates.


Slide38 l.jpg
So…………. indicate the average number of iterations (across all three blocks) of the bootstrap process in which probe was greater than Iall or Imax. Blind Imax numbers indicate the average number of iterations in which the largest single item (probe or irrelevant) was greater than the second largest single item. Mean values for each column are displayed in bold above detection rates.

  • CTP is a promising, powerful paradigm, against any number of CMs, mental and/or physical and RT reliably indicates CM use. The new “P900” might also.

  • [email protected]


But wait lumping cms l.jpg
But wait………Lumping CMs! indicate the average number of iterations (across all three blocks) of the bootstrap process in which probe was greater than Iall or Imax. Blind Imax numbers indicate the average number of iterations in which the largest single item (probe or irrelevant) was greater than the second largest single item. Mean values for each column are displayed in bold above detection rates.

  • Instead of CM first, then I saw it response…

  • Do them simultaneously! Then Bye Bye RT index:


Slide40 l.jpg

Probe indicate the average number of iterations (across all three blocks) of the bootstrap process in which probe was greater than Iall or Imax. Blind Imax numbers indicate the average number of iterations in which the largest single item (probe or irrelevant) was greater than the second largest single item. Mean values for each column are displayed in bold above detection rates.

Iall


But erps still work to catch em whewww l.jpg
But ERPs still work to catch ‘ indicate the average number of iterations (across all three blocks) of the bootstrap process in which probe was greater than Iall or Imax. Blind Imax numbers indicate the average number of iterations in which the largest single item (probe or irrelevant) was greater than the second largest single item. Mean values for each column are displayed in bold above detection rates.em! (Whewww!)


ad