Lie detection with contingent negative variation.

topographies of contingent negative variation (CNV) were recorded in a paradigm of delayed response with feedback for three kinds of faces: familiar, strange and target. Subjects made responses to the faces according to whether the faces were familiar or not, but also, gave deliberately deceptive responses to target faces to 'cheat the computer'. Subjects were told that the computer could judge whether they were being honest or not. For each trial of the experiment, if subjects cheated the computer successfully and their responses were judged as honest and they were given a reward, otherwise they received a penalty. In this simulated lie detection test, CNV exhibited more negative shifts for target than those for non-target (familiar and strange). These differences could be accounted for by subjects' motivation and uncertainty about passing the test. With the results of further paired t-tests between target and non-target faces at each electrode, CNV was demonstrated as a reliable indicator for lie detection. In addition, vector length was used to capture global CNV information and was found to be a very good indicator, even better than the CNV information at the individual electrode sites.

[1]  Helen Neville,et al.  Recognition and surprise alter the human visual evoked response. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  W. Walter,et al.  Contingent Negative Variation : An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain , 1964, Nature.

[3]  S. H. Curry,et al.  Slow Potential Changes in the Human Brain , 1993, NATO ASI Series.

[4]  C. Brunia,et al.  Wait and see. , 2001, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  J. Peter Rosenfeld Event-related potentials in detection of deception,malingering, and false memories , 2002 .

[6]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  R. Verleger,et al.  Preparation for action: an ERP study about two tasks provoking variability in response speed. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[8]  M. Honda,et al.  Event-related potentials during paired associate memory paradigm. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  Geert J. M. van Boxtel,et al.  The contingent Negative Variation in a choice reaction task , 1993 .

[10]  Event-related potential correlates of implicit priming and explicit memory tasks. , 1993, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[11]  R. Simons,et al.  The component structure of event-related slow potentials: TASK, ISI, and warning stimulus effects on the ‘E’ wave , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[12]  Gary E. Raney,et al.  Detection of guilty knowledge with event-related potentials. , 1991 .

[13]  C. Brunia,et al.  Distribution of slow brain potentials related to motor preparation and stimulus anticipation in a time estimation task. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[14]  Eric Hellstrand Recent Advances in Human Neurophysiology , 1999 .

[15]  F Rösler,et al.  Toward a functional categorization of slow waves: taking into account past and future events. , 1991, Psychophysiology.

[16]  John W. Rohrbaugh,et al.  13 Sensory and Motor Aspects of the Contingent Negative Variation , 1983 .

[17]  C. Brunia,et al.  Motor and non-motor aspects of slow brain potentials , 1994, Biological Psychology.

[18]  D. Dougherty,et al.  The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific analysis and public controversy. , 1985 .

[19]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Posterior and anterior contribution of hand-movement preparation to late CNV. , 2000 .

[20]  D. Lykken,et al.  The detection of deception. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  M. Coles Modern mind-brain reading: psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[22]  Y. Kotani,et al.  The effect of stimulus discriminability on stimulus-preceding negativities prior to instructive and feedback stimuli , 1999, Biological Psychology.

[23]  H Shibasaki,et al.  Subdural potentials at orbitofrontal and mesial prefrontal areas accompanying anticipation and decision making in humans: a comparison with Bereitschaftspotential. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  H. Semlitsch,et al.  A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. , 1986, Psychophysiology.