A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection

Authors

  • JOHN J. B. ALLEN,

    Corresponding author
    1. University of Arizona. Tucson. USA
      Address reprint requests to: John J. B Allen. Ph.D., Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 210068. University of Arizona. Tucson. AZ K5721-1X168. E-mail: jallen@u.arizona.edu.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • WILLIAM G. IACONO

    1. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. USA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Portions of the present data set were presented at the 1991 annual convention of the Society for Psychophysiological Research.

  • This research was supported in part by NIMH research training fellowship .5T32-MH 17069-07 and by a gram from the McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience.

  • We thank Sheri Boril and Kurt Danielson for assistance with participants. Peter Rosenfeld and Larry Harwell for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, and Mark Borgstrom for statistical assistance and consultation.

Address reprint requests to: John J. B Allen. Ph.D., Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 210068. University of Arizona. Tucson. AZ K5721-1X168. E-mail: jallen@u.arizona.edu.

Abstract

We previously reported that a Bayesian-based event-related potential memory assessment procedure (Allen, lacono, & Danielson. 1992, Psychophysiology. 29, 504-522) was highly accurate at identifying previously learned material, regardless of an individual's motivational incentive to conceal information. When a bootstrapping procedure (Harwell & Donchin, 1991. Psychophysiology, 2ft, 531-547) is applied to these same data, greater motivational incentives appear to increase the accuracy of the procedure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to examine these two procedures and a new procedure. ROC curves indicated that all three methods produce extremely high rates of classification accuracy and that the sensitivity of the bootstrapping procedure to motivational incentive is due to the particular cut points selected. One or the other method may be preferred depending upon incentive to deceive, the cost of incorrect decisions, and the availability of extra psychophysiological data.

Ancillary