A novel and effective item-source complex trial protocol: Discrimination of guilty from both knowledgeable and unknowledgeable innocent subjects.

Innocent subjects who are knowledgeable of crime-related information will often be misclassified as "guilty" in P300-based complex trial protocol (CTP). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a more rigorous CTP that can effectively discriminate the guilty from both the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable innocents. Sometimes the guilty and the knowledgeable innocents possess the same item memories but different source memories. The present study designed a novel item-source complex trial protocol based on the differences of source memory among the three kinds of individuals. Either the crime-related probe (e.g., the stolen ring) or one of the crime-unrelated stimuli (e.g., watch, earring, bracelet, or bangle) (item memory) was presented in the first part of each trail, and either a stealing-source word (e.g., stole) or other-source word (e.g., fetched) (source memory) was presented in the second part of each trail. The results showed that: (1) the P300 evoked by item memory could effectively discriminated the guilty from the unknowledgeable innocent (AUC = 0.76) but failed to effectively discriminate the guilty from the knowledgeable innocent (AUC = 0.60); (2) the late positive component evoked by source memory could effectively discriminated the guilty from both the knowledgeable innocent (AUC = 0.94) and the unknowledgeable innocent (AUC = 0.84) in one test.

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.

Inferior detection of information from collaborative versus individual crimes based on a P300 Concealed Information Test.

The present study used a P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT) to detect individual and collaborative crimes and to explore whether or not the P300 index is effective in identifying collaborative crime members. Participants were divided into two groups to either steal a ring alone (individual group) or collaboratively with another companion participant (collaborative group) before taking the Complex Trial Protocol test that is regarded as an accurate version of the P300-based CIT. The ERP results revealed that both groups showed significantly larger P300s to probe (the ring) than to all irrelevant stimuli (other jewelery), but the P300 amplitude difference of probe stimulus versus irrelevant stimuli in the collaborative group was significantly less than that in the individual group. For the individual diagnosis, using P300 index, the detection rate was significantly inferior for collaborative crime than individual crime, probably related to weakness of collaborative encoding. The ROC curve comparisons showed the individual guilty was effectively discriminated from the simulated-innocent (AUC = .84) and from the collaborative guilty (AUC = .83), but the collaborative guilty was not discriminable from the simulated-innocent (AUC = .66). These findings suggest that collaborative encoding of crime-related information impacts the efficiency of the P300 index, and that the P300-based CIT is not applicable when used to identify collaborative crime perpetrators.