감성과학 (Science of Emotion and Sensibility)

  • 제20권3호
  • /
  • Pages.109-118
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1226-8593(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-613X(eISSN)
한국감성과학회 (Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

반응양식이 P300 숨긴정보검사의 정확도에 미치는 영향

The Effect of Response Type on the Accuracy of P300-based Concealed Information Test

  • Jeon, Hajung (Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Sohn, Jin-Hun (Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Kwangbai (Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Eom, Jin-Sup (Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University)
  • 투고 : 2017.05.04
  • 심사 : 2017.08.11
  • 발행 : 2017.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 P300 숨긴정보검사에서 관련자극과 무관련자극에 대한 버튼 반응 여부가 P300 진폭과 거짓말 탐지 정확률에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 실험참가자들은 두 가지 조건에서 P300 숨긴정보검사를 받았다. 일반응 조건에서는 실험참가자들에게 목표자극이 제시될 때에만 마우스 왼쪽 버튼을 누르도록 지시하였으며, 양반응 조건에서는 제시되는 자극이 목표자극이면 마우스 왼쪽 버튼을 누르고 목표자극이 아니면 마우스 오른쪽 버튼을 누르도록 하였다. 실험 결과, 목표자극에 대한 반응시간은 두 조건에서 유의하게 다르지 않았으며, 양반응 조건에서 관련자극에 대한 반응시간은 무관련자극에 대한 반응시간보다 유의하게 더 길었다. 관련자극에 대한 P300 진폭과 무관련자극에 대한 P300 진폭은 모두 양반응 조건에 비교하여 일반응 조건에서 더 작았다. 그러나 관련자극과 무관련자극 간의 P300 진폭 차이는 두 실험조건에서 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았으며, 거짓말 탐지율도 두 조건 간에 큰 차이가 없었다. 이러한 결과에 근거하여 버튼 반응이 자극 간 제시간격이 짧은 P300 숨긴정보검사에 미치는 영향을 논의하였다.

This study examined the effects of button response to probe and irrelevant stimuli on P300 amplitude and lie detection rate in P300-based concealed information test. Participants underwent the P300-based concealed information test (P300 CIT) in two conditions. In one button condition participants were instructed to press the left mouse button only when the target was present. In two button condition, they were asked to press the left mouse button for target and right button for non-target. The results showed that the response time to target stimulus was not significantly different between the two conditions, and the response time to the probe stimulus was significantly longer than the irrelevant stimulus. The P300 amplitudes for the probe and irrelevant stimulus were all smaller in one button condition compared to two button condition. However, the P300 amplitude difference between the probe stimulus and the irrelevant stimulus did not show a significant difference in the two experimental conditions, and the lie detection rate did not differ significantly between the two conditions. Based on these findings, the effect of button response on P300 CIT with a short inter-stimulus interval was discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bennington, J. Y., & Polich, J. (1999). Comparison of P300 from passive and active tasks for auditory and visual stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 34(2), 171-177. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8760(99)00070-7
  2. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the guilty knowledge test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 131-151. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.131
  3. Cutmore, T. R. H., Djakovic, T., Kebbell, M. R., & Shum, D. H. K. (2009). An object cue is more effective than a word in ERP-based detection of deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(3), 185-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.08.003
  4. Deng, X., Rosenfeld, J. P., Ward, A., & Labkovsky, E. (2016). Superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in a P300-based CIT: The Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 105, 26-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.04.010
  5. Eom, J-S, Han, Y-H., Sohn, J-H., & Park, K-B. (2010). Effects of stimulus similarity on P300 amplitude in P300-based concealed information test. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 13(3), 541-550.
  6. Eom, J-S, Sohn, S., Park, K., Eum, Y-J., & Sohn, J-H. (2016). Effects of varying numbers of probes on RT-based CIT accuracy. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(2), 229-238. DOI: 10.14257/ijmue.2016.11.2.23
  7. Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531-547. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x
  8. Johnson, R. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology, 23(4), 367-384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00649.x
  9. Johnson, R. (1993). On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology, 30(1) 90-97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03208.x
  10. Kramer, A. F., Sirevaag, E. J., & Braune, R. (1987). A psychophysiological assessment of operator workload during simulated flight missions. Human Factors, 29(2), 145-160. DOI: 10.1177/001872088702900203
  11. Kubo, K., & Nittono, H. (2009). The role of intention to conceal in the P300-based concealed information test. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34(3), 227-235. DOI: 10.1007/s10484-009-9089-y
  12. Lefebvre, C. D., Marchand, Y., Smith, S. M., & Connolly, J. F. (2009). Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73(3), 218-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.03.003
  13. Lee, B-H., Hwang, S-T., Park, K., Sohn, J-H., & Eom, J-S. (2013). P300-based concealed information test and inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): A comparison among 500ms, 800ms, and 3000ms ISIs. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 27(3), 87-107.
  14. Lee, M-H., Eom, J-S., Eum, Y-J., & Sohn, J-H. (2015). Effects of countermeasure on P300-based concealed information test with short inter-stimulus interval. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 29(2), 91-108.
  15. Mertens, R., & Allen, J. J. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: Deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45(2), 286-298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x
  16. Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., & Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300 based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41(2), 205-219. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00158.x
  17. Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., & Furedy, J. J. (2006). P300-based detection of concealed autobiographical versus incidentally acquired information in target and non-target paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 60(3), 251-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.06.002
  18. Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E. (2007). Single versus multiple probe blocks of P300-based concealed information tests for self-referring versus incidentally obtained information. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 396-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.10.002
  19. Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winogard, M., Lui, M. A., Vandenboom, C., & Chedid, E. (2008). The complex trial protocol(CTP): A new, countermeasureresistant, accurate, P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 45(6), 906-919. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00708.x
  20. Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P., & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23(6), 695-703. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00696.x
  21. Soskins, M., Rosenfeld, J. P., & Niendam, T. (2001). Peak-to-peak measurement of P300 recorded at .3 hz high pass filter settings in intraindividual diagnosis: complex vs. simple paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40(2), 173-180. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8760(00)00154-9
  22. Verschuere, B., Rosenfeld, J. P., Winograd, M., Labkovsky, E., & Wiersema, R. (2009). The role of deception in P300 memory detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(2), 253-262. DOI: 10.1348/135532508x384184