ERPs in Deception, Malingering,

and False Memory

J. Peter Rosenfeld
Psychology Department
Northwestern University
Evanston Illinois,USA
 Principal Collaborators to 2008:
• Joel Ellwanger Ming Lui
• Tuti Reinhart Miller
• Archana Rao
• Matt Soskins
• Greg Bosh

• Many of the original ideas here were theirs.

A simple neural code
Event-related potentials
 P300 Attributes:
• An Endogenous, Event-Related Potential (ERP)
• Positive polarity (down in Illinois).
• Latency range: 300-1000 msec
– varies with stimulus complexity/evaluation time
• Typical Scalp Amplitude(Amp) Map
– Pz > Cz > Fz
• Amp = f(stim. probability, meaning)
P300 at 3 scalp sites
 We are always wanting to
compare waves…
• ..that is, group or condition

• averages!
EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL
AVERAGING…..
…..from 4 sites on the scalp:

HERE IS WHAT
SPONTANEOUS EEG LOOKS
LIKE……
HERE IS A SINGLE SWEEP …
HERE ARE 3 TRIALS….
the class to the movie…
called, “ERP Averaging”
REMINDER FOR PROF TO
TAKE
 Since averages are so much
cleaner than single sweeps,
…and show the true stimulus-evoked
event that is time-locked to the eliciting
event, and are more noise free,
….it obviously makes sense to compare
averages rather than single sweeps,
that is, to do analysis, like t-tests on
averages.
People did that in comparing group
ERPs or grand averages.
 For example,
• The schizophrenic group average
versus the normal average
• or the well-trained group average
P300 vs. that of the untrained
group.
• Remember, in a group, each subject
has an average ERP.
• ….but within a single subject, there
are only single sweeps to compare
 In Bootstrapping…
• …..the original set of single
sweeps is repeatedly randomly
sampled –but with replacement—
…yielding multiple averages in a
single subject.
• Let’s say there are 6 repetitions of
sampling of 18 single sweeps:
EACH SET OF 18 SINGLE
SWEEPS IS AVERAGED
YIELDING 6 AVERAGES…
….that look like real average of
original set but with variations
 P300 amplitude as recognition
index
• Autobiographical items (previous slide)
• Guilty Knowledge test items (Rosenfeld et al.,
1988)
• Antisocial/illegal acts in employee screening
(Rosenfeld et al., 1991).
• Tests of malingered cognitive deficits with
oddball paradigm. Do folks recognize
personal info? Start with normal models….
 3-stimulus protocol
• 1probe

• 2 irrelevant

• 3 target
Normals: autobiog. oddball
CHI patients: autobiog. oddball
Individual detection rates for
various stimuli (normal
simulators).
E-Name forgetters(oddball is
dark line)
Screening example
 Autobiographical paradigm has
limitations in detecting
malingerers
• Most malingerers are not so unsophisticated
as to verbally state that they don’t recall,
say, their birthdate, when in fact they may
have just filled out a card in which they
provided that information.
•
 Continuation…
• The behavioral “MDMT” was developed as
an entrapment test to catch these people.
It’s a simple matching-to-sample test: A
sample 3-digit number is presented
followed either by a match or mismatch.
 Simple MDMT paradigm:
• There is a 5-15 second interval between sample
and probe. This is an easy task, yielding 100%
performance even in patients with moderate
head injury--unless, oddly enough, they happen
to be in litigation !
• Where does one set the threshold for diagnosis
of malingering? 90%? (Some non-litigating
malingerers score well below 90%, as we’ll see.)
Behavioral MDMT not reliable:
Some non-litigating pts. fail
P300-Souped-up MDMT: simple
version
• “Simple” means only one probe stimulus
per sample.
• P300 is recorded as soon as the probe --
match or mismatch-- is presented.
• Match probability is kept low.

• RESULTS------------>
Match-To-Sample example
Computer-plotted data:
 What would 75%-HITTING
plaintiff’s lawyer say?
• “Sure, my client scores 75% correct and his
P300 to matches is bigger than to
mismatches. But that’s because he mostly
DOES make the correct discrimination--but
75% is still less than normal. Therefore,
give us the money (me, one-third).”
•
 Continuation…
• We did 2 experiments: 1) If a malingerer
aims to score 75% correct, whither P300?
2) What happens to P300 with a really
tough discrimination?
Manipulated 75% “hit” rate
produces a larger P300….

100%
100%
Experiment 2: Difficult tasks: 7
and 9 digit numbers, match to
sample.
P300 wiped out in difficult task,
at 75%, even at accuracy> 90%
Another View of same effect:
 Simple P3-MDMT summary:
• If one fakes 75% hits, one’s P300 gets
bigger(or doesn’t change).
• If one has genuine difficulty--honest 75%--
then P300 is totally removed.
• These findings should allow discrimination
of normals, malingerers, real deficit(pts).
• BUT…diagnostic hit rate only 70% !!
 Scalp Distribution
• For P300, Pz > Cz > Fz, usually, but…

• There are many ways that this can be so:

 SITE

AMP

Fz Cz Pz
 Cz
Fz Pz

lie
SITES
truth

AMP

Fz Cz Pz
Match-to-Sample Test: advanced
version
• 386 sample
• 212
• 457
• 386 (*)
• 789
• 325
• 123
 Stimulus-Response Types
• Match(R) probe
– “Match” (RR--honest/correct)
– “Mismatch” (RW--dishonest/error)
• Mismatch(W) probe
– “Mismatch” (WW--honest/correct)
– “Match” (WR--dishonest/error)
ERPs in Liar Group to R and W
Deception swamps out R/W
effect
“Profiles” of Deception
Truth vs Lie Groups
Deception overcomes paradigm
effects
 Specificity (“Pinnochio”)
• Simple Truth vs. Lie Groups differ in task
demands.
• This is not relevant for practical field
detection.
• It is relevant for claims pertaining to a
specific lie response.
• How do you make a “perfect” control group?
An imperfect(but not bad) control
Two groups run in two trial blocks of
autobiog. oddball: [1. Phone #, 2. Bday]
• Lie Group
– Block 1 : Respond truthfully, repeat forwards.
– Block 2: Lie 50% of time, repeat forwards.
• Control Group
– Block 1: Respond truthfully, repeat forwards.
– Block 2: Respond truthfully, repeat backwards(50%).
Only lying liars stick out.
Same result with simple truth
control
Lie Response<>Truth Response;
Psychopathy is
irrelevant(swamped).
 Problems with these simple
oddball methods…
• (1) All the data I have shown --with respect
to scalp distribution-- were based on group
analysis, whereas in deception detection,
individual diagnosis is the key and we
never did better than 73% accuracy, even
with 32 electrodes!
• (2) Countermeasures…more later…
 False(honestly
believed)memories:
• Deese/Roediger paradigm
– Presented words at study: sleep, bed,
dream,blanket,pajamas,dark….
– Not presented word: night.
• Test words:
– night-- a critical LURE--> possible responses: “Old”
or “New”
– bed-- an actual memory word “Old”
– table-- a completely new word “New”
Profiles depend on belief:
Replication data: almost ditto
P300 Latency is the unconscious
recognizer
Replication data: ditto !
 What’s next?
• What does Malingered “false” memory look
like?
• Again, what happens as sites are added?
• ________________________________

• jp-rosenfeld@northwestern.edu