Literature DB >> 10740954

Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge".

T L Seymour1, C M Seifert, M G Shafto, A L Mosmann.   

Abstract

How can a suspect's guilt or innocence be reliably tested? The validity of the polygraph, which measures changes in physiological arousal during a "guilty knowledge" test, is controversial (e.g., T. R. Bashore & P. E. Rapp, 1993; T. P. Cross & L. Saxe, 1992; D. T. Lykken, 1998; J. P. Rosenfeld, 1995; R. Steinbrook, 1992). One alternative to the polygraph examines event-related potentials recorded during a memory interference task (L. A. Farwell & E. Donchin, 1991). The present study extended this paradigm to determine whether response times (RTs) can accurately identify participants possessing specific guilty knowledge. Results from Experiment 1 showed that RT alone can reliably discriminate "guilty" from "innocent" participants. Experiments 2a and 2b indicated that an RT-based paradigm is more resistant to strategic manipulation than previously suggested (Farwell & Donchin, 1991). This RT-based paradigm may be a viable alternative to the polygraph for detecting guilty knowledge.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10740954     DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9010


  35 in total

1.  The revealing glance: eye gaze behavior to concealed information.

Authors:  Charlotte Schwedes; Dirk Wentura
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-05

2.  Placebo effects in laser-evoked pain potentials.

Authors:  Tor D Wager; Dagfinn Matre; Kenneth L Casey
Journal:  Brain Behav Immun       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 7.217

3.  Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information.

Authors:  Matthias Gamer; Thomas Bauermann; Peter Stoeter; Gerhard Vossel
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Electromyographic evidence for response conflict in the exclude recognition task.

Authors:  Travis L Seymour; Eric H Schumacher
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 5.  A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging.

Authors:  Sean A Spence; Mike D Hunter; Tom F D Farrow; Russell D Green; David H Leung; Catherine J Hughes; Venkatasubramanian Ganesan
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Manipulating item proportion and deception reveals crucial dissociation between behavioral, autonomic, and neural indices of concealed information.

Authors:  Kristina Suchotzki; Bruno Verschuere; Judith Peth; Geert Crombez; Matthias Gamer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Through the eyes to memory: Fixation durations as an early indirect index of concealed knowledge.

Authors:  Charlotte Schwedes; Dirk Wentura
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-11

8.  Electrophysiological markers of working memory usage as an index for truth-based lies.

Authors:  Yu-Hui Lo; Philip Tseng
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Cognitive neuroscience of honesty and deception: A signaling framework.

Authors:  Adrianna Jenkins; Lusha Zhu; Ming Hsu
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2016-10

10.  Time and encoding effects in the concealed knowledge test.

Authors:  Travis L Seymour; Becky R Fraynt
Journal:  Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback       Date:  2009-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.