The Role of Psychophysiology in Forensic Assessments: Deception Detection, ERPs and Virtual Reality Mock Crime Scenarios

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/194054
Title:
The Role of Psychophysiology in Forensic Assessments: Deception Detection, ERPs and Virtual Reality Mock Crime Scenarios
Author:
Mertens, Ralf
Issue Date:
2006
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
ERPs, specifically the P3, have been proposed as an alternative to traditional polygraphy, with one approach (i.e., Brain Fingerprinting) being promoted as infallible to justify its use on a commercial basis. Concerns have been voiced, however, that such techniques would have to undergo peer-reviewed studies to satisfy validity concerns. Rosenfeld et al. (2004) found, for example, that mental countermeasures were effective in reducing detection rates using an amplitude based, peak-to-peak measure. The present study attempted to replicate and extend Rosenfeld et al.'s study, and to test Brain Fingerprinting's vulnerability to participant manipulation by employing a highly realistic virtual reality crime scenario, multiple countermeasures, and Bayesian and bootstrapping analytic approaches to classify individuals as being guilty or innocent. Participants reported a high degree of realism supporting the external validity of this study and suggesting future uses of virtual environments. Hit rates across statistical methods were significantly lower for standard guilty and innocent participants as compared to previous studies; countermeasures reduced the overall hit rates even further. Brain Fingerprinting was as vulnerable to countermeasures as other statistical measures, and produced a significant number of indeterminate outcomes. Nevertheless, innocent participants remained protected from being falsely accused across statistical methods, consistent with findings of prior studies. Reaction times were determined unsuitable in determining guilt or innocence in this study. Results suggested that ERP based deception detection measures might lack the level of validity required for use in an applied setting.
Type:
text; Electronic Dissertation
Keywords:
P3; Deception Detection; ERPs
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Psychology; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Committee Chair:
Allen, John J.B.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleThe Role of Psychophysiology in Forensic Assessments: Deception Detection, ERPs and Virtual Reality Mock Crime Scenariosen_US
dc.creatorMertens, Ralfen_US
dc.contributor.authorMertens, Ralfen_US
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractERPs, specifically the P3, have been proposed as an alternative to traditional polygraphy, with one approach (i.e., Brain Fingerprinting) being promoted as infallible to justify its use on a commercial basis. Concerns have been voiced, however, that such techniques would have to undergo peer-reviewed studies to satisfy validity concerns. Rosenfeld et al. (2004) found, for example, that mental countermeasures were effective in reducing detection rates using an amplitude based, peak-to-peak measure. The present study attempted to replicate and extend Rosenfeld et al.'s study, and to test Brain Fingerprinting's vulnerability to participant manipulation by employing a highly realistic virtual reality crime scenario, multiple countermeasures, and Bayesian and bootstrapping analytic approaches to classify individuals as being guilty or innocent. Participants reported a high degree of realism supporting the external validity of this study and suggesting future uses of virtual environments. Hit rates across statistical methods were significantly lower for standard guilty and innocent participants as compared to previous studies; countermeasures reduced the overall hit rates even further. Brain Fingerprinting was as vulnerable to countermeasures as other statistical measures, and produced a significant number of indeterminate outcomes. Nevertheless, innocent participants remained protected from being falsely accused across statistical methods, consistent with findings of prior studies. Reaction times were determined unsuitable in determining guilt or innocence in this study. Results suggested that ERP based deception detection measures might lack the level of validity required for use in an applied setting.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Dissertationen_US
dc.subjectP3en_US
dc.subjectDeception Detectionen_US
dc.subjectERPsen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.chairAllen, John J.B.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberAllen, John J.B.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberKazniak, Alfred W.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGarland, Randyen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberBiggan, Shannahen_US
dc.identifier.proquest1470en_US
dc.identifier.oclc137356913en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.