Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases

Ruiying Li; Hongguang Liu; Jing Yong

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases

Ruiying Li, Hongguang Liu, Jing Yong

Published in American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 6, Issue 3)

Received: 13 August 2017 Published: 14 August 2017

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study used Event-related Potentials (ERPs) to examine the difference between three issue types (related, foil, and unrelated issues) and two reaction types (honesty and deception reaction). This was a subject-in design. Two sets of data were collected. First, the behavior data showed that the reaction time of the deception was 200ms slower than that of honesty, and the decreasing order of the reaction time on three designed issue types was foil issues, unrelated issues, and related issues. Second, the EEG data showed that related issues produce the most significant ERPs effect; the obvious wave separation of honesty reaction was between 300ms to 800ms versus 200ms to 500ms in experiment of deception; the deception reaction could evoke distinct P300, which was most obvious in left parietal lobes such as FC3, C3, CP3, P3; P3 was more sensitive in the time window of 200ms to 400ms, honesty reaction evoked obvious positive wave whereas deception evoked negative wave. In conclusion, the reaction time of deception was significantly slower than honesty. Moreover, deception evoked the obvious P300 effect. Based on the waveform evoked by different issue types, left parietal lobe waveform could be used as judgement of honesty or deception, and the correlation between suspect and the case could be decided.

Published in	American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 6, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
Page(s)	42-50
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

ERPs, Simulation of Concealing Cases, Deception Detection, P300

References

[1]	Ambach, W., Bursch, S., Stark, R., & Vaitl, D. (2010). A concealed information test with multimodal measurement. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75 (3), 258-267.
[2]	Alsufyani, A., Zoumpoulaki, A., Filetti, M., & Bowman, H. (2013). A new method for detecting deception in event related potentials using individual-specific weight templates. BMC Neuroscience, 14 (1), 1-2.
[3]	Brown, C. R., Clarke, A. R., & Barry, R. J. (2007). Auditory processing in an inter-modal oddball task: effects of a combined auditory/visual standard on auditory target erps. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65 (2), 122-131.
[4]	Cao, B, L., Liu, H, J., Lin, C, D.(2005). Cognitive Load Influenced the Pupill’s Strategies Selection of Distributing Working Memory Resources. Psychological Development and Education, 21 (1), 36-42.
[5]	Chen, Y, L., Sun, L, B. (2015). Advanced tutorial of Polygraph, Beijing: Press of People's Public Security University of China.
[6]	Cui, Q., Zhang, Q, L., Qiu, J., Liu, Q., Du, X, M., Ruan, X, L. (2009). The Functionally Separation of P300 and CNV in Lie Detection. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41 (4), 316-328.
[7]	Donchin, E., (1985). Surprise!--Surprise? Psychophysiology, 22 (5), 497.
[8]	DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 74.
[9]	Fang, F., Liu, Y., & Shen, Z. (2003). Lie detection with contingent negative variation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50 (3), 247-255.
[10]	Farwell, L. A. (2012). Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 6 (2), 115.
[11]	Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: interrogative polygraph ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28 (5), 531-547.
[12]	Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11 (2), 305-323.
[13]	Jang, K. W., Kim, D. Y., Cho, S., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Effects of the combination of p3-based GKT and reality monitoring on deceptive classification. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 (2), 18.
[14]	Jennifer M. C. Vendemia PhD, Robert F. Buzan MA, Eric P. Green MA, & Michael J. Schillaci PhD. (2005). Effects of preparedness to deceive on ERP waveforms in a two-stimulus paradigm. Journal of Neurotherapy, 9 (3), 45-70.
[15]	Jongsma, M. L., Desain, P., & Honing, H. (2004). Rhythmic context influences the auditory evoked potentials of musicians and non-musicians. Biological Psychology, 66 (2), 129-152.
[16]	Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., Marshuetz, C., Koeppe, R. A., & Reuterlorenz, P. A. (1998). Inhibition in verbal working memory revealed by brain activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95 (14), 8410-3.
[17]	Jr, J. R., Barnhardt, J., & Zhu, J. (2005). Differential effects of practice on the executive processes used for truthful and deceptive responses: an event-related brain potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24 (3), 386-404.
[18]	Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A., Gur, R. C., Mcdonald, S., & Ragland, J. D., et al. (2002). Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage, 15 (3), 727-732.
[19]	Liao, S, Z. (1996). Event-related potential and Lie Detection. Journal of Clinical Electroencephalology, 5 (3), 186-188.
[20]	Liu, H, G. (2010). Brain Cognitive Progressive Process Analysis of Case Related Information. Journal of People's Public Security University of China (Natural Science Edition), 3, 47-52.
[21]	Meegan, D. V. (2008). Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: scientific, ethical, and legal issues. Am J Bioeth, 8 (1), 9-20.
[22]	Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winograd, M., Ming, A. L., Vandenboom, C., & Chedid, E. (2008). The complex trial protocol (ctp): a new, countermeasure-resistant, accurate, p300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 45 (6), 906-919.
[23]	Sun, L, N., Zhou, R, H., & Li, S, Y. (2010). Study on the Difference of Continuous Working Memory Ability By P300. Chinese Journal of Applied Physiology, 26 (1), 76-76.
[24]	Sachs, G., Anderer, P., Margreiter, N., Semlitsch, H., Saletu, B., & Katschnig, H. (2004). P300 event-related potentials and cognitive function in social phobia. Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging, 131 (3), 249-261.
[25]	Sun, D., Chan, C. C., & Lee, T. M. (2012). Identification and classification of facial familiarity in directed lying: an ERP study. Plos One, 7 (2), e31250.
[26]	Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285.
[27]	Xiong, Y., Luo, Y., Huang, W., Zhang, W., Yang, Y., & Gao, J. (2014). A novel classification method based on ica and elm: a case study in lie detection. Bio-medical materials and engineering, 23 (23), S357-S363.
[28]	Saldžiūnas, V., & Kovalenka, A. (2012). Polygraph screening in Lithuania and Russia. Polygraph. 41 (4).
[29]	Xu, J., Liu, H, G. (2011). Cognitive EEG Lie Detection of Bribery Crime Investigation by “one to one”. Journal of Gansu Vocational College of Political Science and Law, 3, 24-27.
[30]	Zhao, D., Yang, Q, W., Luo, Y, J. (2015). The Application of Event - related Potential in Lie Detection. Journal of Chengdu Medical College, 10 (4), 500-503.
[31]	Zhu, Q., Luo, Y., Chen, H. Liang, H. (2014). Research Orientation of Conceal Information Testing Based on Event - related Single Potential. Journal of Xi Nan University (Social Science Edition), 1 (1), 68-73.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ruiying Li, Hongguang Liu, Jing Yong. (2017). Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(3), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ruiying Li; Hongguang Liu; Jing Yong. Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 6(3), 42-50. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ruiying Li, Hongguang Liu, Jing Yong. Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. Am J Appl Psychol. 2017;6(3):42-50. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13,
  author = {Ruiying Li and Hongguang Liu and Jing Yong},
  title = {Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {6},
  number = {3},
  pages = {42-50},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20170603.13},
  abstract = {This study used Event-related Potentials (ERPs) to examine the difference between three issue types (related, foil, and unrelated issues) and two reaction types (honesty and deception reaction). This was a subject-in design. Two sets of data were collected. First, the behavior data showed that the reaction time of the deception was 200ms slower than that of honesty, and the decreasing order of the reaction time on three designed issue types was foil issues, unrelated issues, and related issues. Second, the EEG data showed that related issues produce the most significant ERPs effect; the obvious wave separation of honesty reaction was between 300ms to 800ms versus 200ms to 500ms in experiment of deception; the deception reaction could evoke distinct P300, which was most obvious in left parietal lobes such as FC3, C3, CP3, P3; P3 was more sensitive in the time window of 200ms to 400ms, honesty reaction evoked obvious positive wave whereas deception evoked negative wave. In conclusion, the reaction time of deception was significantly slower than honesty. Moreover, deception evoked the obvious P300 effect. Based on the waveform evoked by different issue types, left parietal lobe waveform could be used as judgement of honesty or deception, and the correlation between suspect and the case could be decided.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases
AU  - Ruiying Li
AU  - Hongguang Liu
AU  - Jing Yong
Y1  - 2017/08/14
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
T2  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JF  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JO  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
SP  - 42
EP  - 50
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5672
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
AB  - This study used Event-related Potentials (ERPs) to examine the difference between three issue types (related, foil, and unrelated issues) and two reaction types (honesty and deception reaction). This was a subject-in design. Two sets of data were collected. First, the behavior data showed that the reaction time of the deception was 200ms slower than that of honesty, and the decreasing order of the reaction time on three designed issue types was foil issues, unrelated issues, and related issues. Second, the EEG data showed that related issues produce the most significant ERPs effect; the obvious wave separation of honesty reaction was between 300ms to 800ms versus 200ms to 500ms in experiment of deception; the deception reaction could evoke distinct P300, which was most obvious in left parietal lobes such as FC3, C3, CP3, P3; P3 was more sensitive in the time window of 200ms to 400ms, honesty reaction evoked obvious positive wave whereas deception evoked negative wave. In conclusion, the reaction time of deception was significantly slower than honesty. Moreover, deception evoked the obvious P300 effect. Based on the waveform evoked by different issue types, left parietal lobe waveform could be used as judgement of honesty or deception, and the correlation between suspect and the case could be decided.
VL  - 6
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ruiying Li

Institute of Psychological Research, University of International Relations, Beijing, China
Hongguang Liu

Institute of Psychological Research, University of International Relations, Beijing, China
Jing Yong

Institute of Psychological Research, University of International Relations, Beijing, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ruiying Li, Hongguang Liu, Jing Yong. (2017). Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(3), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ruiying Li; Hongguang Liu; Jing Yong. Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 6(3), 42-50. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ruiying Li, Hongguang Liu, Jing Yong. Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases. Am J Appl Psychol. 2017;6(3):42-50. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13,
  author = {Ruiying Li and Hongguang Liu and Jing Yong},
  title = {Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {6},
  number = {3},
  pages = {42-50},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20170603.13},
  abstract = {This study used Event-related Potentials (ERPs) to examine the difference between three issue types (related, foil, and unrelated issues) and two reaction types (honesty and deception reaction). This was a subject-in design. Two sets of data were collected. First, the behavior data showed that the reaction time of the deception was 200ms slower than that of honesty, and the decreasing order of the reaction time on three designed issue types was foil issues, unrelated issues, and related issues. Second, the EEG data showed that related issues produce the most significant ERPs effect; the obvious wave separation of honesty reaction was between 300ms to 800ms versus 200ms to 500ms in experiment of deception; the deception reaction could evoke distinct P300, which was most obvious in left parietal lobes such as FC3, C3, CP3, P3; P3 was more sensitive in the time window of 200ms to 400ms, honesty reaction evoked obvious positive wave whereas deception evoked negative wave. In conclusion, the reaction time of deception was significantly slower than honesty. Moreover, deception evoked the obvious P300 effect. Based on the waveform evoked by different issue types, left parietal lobe waveform could be used as judgement of honesty or deception, and the correlation between suspect and the case could be decided.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Event - Related Potentials on the Application of Deception Detection in the Simulation of Concealing Cases
AU  - Ruiying Li
AU  - Hongguang Liu
AU  - Jing Yong
Y1  - 2017/08/14
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
T2  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JF  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JO  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
SP  - 42
EP  - 50
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5672
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20170603.13
AB  - This study used Event-related Potentials (ERPs) to examine the difference between three issue types (related, foil, and unrelated issues) and two reaction types (honesty and deception reaction). This was a subject-in design. Two sets of data were collected. First, the behavior data showed that the reaction time of the deception was 200ms slower than that of honesty, and the decreasing order of the reaction time on three designed issue types was foil issues, unrelated issues, and related issues. Second, the EEG data showed that related issues produce the most significant ERPs effect; the obvious wave separation of honesty reaction was between 300ms to 800ms versus 200ms to 500ms in experiment of deception; the deception reaction could evoke distinct P300, which was most obvious in left parietal lobes such as FC3, C3, CP3, P3; P3 was more sensitive in the time window of 200ms to 400ms, honesty reaction evoked obvious positive wave whereas deception evoked negative wave. In conclusion, the reaction time of deception was significantly slower than honesty. Moreover, deception evoked the obvious P300 effect. Based on the waveform evoked by different issue types, left parietal lobe waveform could be used as judgement of honesty or deception, and the correlation between suspect and the case could be decided.
VL  - 6
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download