Examining levels of processing using verbal & pictorial stimuli with the complex trial protocol in a mock theft scenario

The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) is an EEG-based Concealed Information Test (CIT). Depth of processing influences memorability where deeper processing increases recollection. The CTP's performance as a function of shallow versus deep levels of processing has not been explored. Two experiments were conducted, one with verbal stimuli and the other with their pictorial referents. In both experiments, participants were randomly assigned to three groups, Innocent Control (Control) condition, Guilty Immediate Shallow Processing (Shallow) condition, and Guilty Immediate Deep Processing (Deep) condition. Shallow and Deep participants from both experiments underwent the same mock theft scenario and all three groups were later exposed to either a verbal (N = 41) or pictorial (N = 43) stimulus on a computer monitor. In the word study, no differences in CIT effect were found between any of the groups. Areas under the curve (AUCs) did not differ from chance (.624 and .679 for Shallow and Deep groups respectively). In the image study, the CIT effect for the Shallow and Deep groups differed from the Control one. The AUCs (.755 and .943 for the Shallow and Deep groups respectively) differed significantly from each other. Levels of Processing (LOP) did not appear to have any bearing on CTP performance when words were used as probes but did have an effect when images were used. The findings may hint at some of the limitations of the CTP and fail to replicate similar experiments, especially when words are used as probes, from the late Peter Rosenfeld's laboratory.

An Independent Validation of the EEG-Based Complex Trial Protocol with Autobiographical Data and Corroboration of its Resistance to a Cognitively Charged Countermeasure

The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) is a P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT). The theoretical underpinnings of the CIT in the context of law enforcement usage are sound. The CTP is said to effectively discriminate individuals who recognize novel and meaningful stimuli and to be countermeasure resistant. Forty-five undergraduate students were assigned to three groups and instructed to perform a computer task using autobiographical data in connection to a mock burglary script. P300 peak-to-peak amplitude differences between probe (surname) and irrelevant (patronymic foils) items accurately identified 100% (14/14) of Innocent Controls (IC), 94% (15/16) of Simply Guilty (SG) participants, and 93% (14/15) of Guilty Countermeasure (GCM) subjects who were asked to counter all stimuli by mentally counting backwards continuously during their test presentation. Increased number of mistakes during the test, from combined cognitive erroneous responses to pop quizzes and behavioral errors with button presses, significantly discriminated GCM from IC and SG individuals. GCM participants committed more errors than IC and SG which did not differ from one another. Reaction Time (RT) was only significant between GCM and IC groups. Implications for forensic issues are discussed.

Item Roles Explored in a Modified P300-Based CTP Concealed Information Test

In this study, we introduced familiarity-related inducer items (expressions referring to the participant’s self-related, familiar details: “mine,” “familiar”; and expressions referring to other, unfamiliar details, e.g., “other,” “irrelevant”) to the Complex Trial Protocol version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT), at the same time using different item categories with various levels of personal importance to the participants (forenames, birthdays, favorite animals). The inclusion of inducers did not significantly improve the overall efficiency of the method as we would have expected considering that these inducers should increase awareness of the denial of the recognition of the probes (the true details of the participants), and hence the subjective saliency of the items (Lukács in J Appl Res Mem Cognit, 6:283–284, 2017a). This may be explained by the visual similarity of inducers to the probe and irrelevant items and the consequent distracting influence of inducers on probe-task performance. On the other hand, the CIT effect (probe-irrelevant P300 differences) was always lower for less personally important (low-salient) and higher for more personally important (high-salient) items.

Visual presentation modality's superiority in the detection of concealed information: A comparison of the efficiencies of the P300-based Complex Trial Protocol in visual versus auditory modalities

Some studies have shown a superiority of visual vs. auditory item presentation in the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP), which is a countermeasure-resistant version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT). But those studies used elaborately- rehearsed autobiographical information as stimuli, instead of incidentally-acquired crime-related information. Thus, the relative superiority of the visual as opposed to the auditory modality in detecting episodic crime-related information is still unknown. The present study also improved on the usual mock crime scenario by adding a mock disposal task between a mock theft and administration of a CTP test to increase stimulus saliency. In this CTP, the probe and the irrelevant items were presented visually or acoustically on alternating trials, while target and non-target stimuli were simultaneously presented in visual and auditory modalities. The results showed that the P300 amplitude differences of probe minus irrelevant items presented in the visual modality were significantly larger compared to the auditory modality, and the detection rate of the guilty participants was also significantly higher for the visual (14/16) versus auditory modality (5/16). These results suggest a superiority of visual vs. auditory presentation when a CTP is used to detect crime-related information in a mock crime scenario.