P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime

J. Peter Rosenfeld*, Ilayda Ozsan, Anne C. Ward

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Based on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) study by klein Selle, Verschuere, Kindt, Meijer, & Ben Shakhar (2016), 15 participants pretended to perform a crime shown on a video, which 16 other participants pretended to witness. Both groups then experienced a P300-based Concealed Information Test (CIT) protocol called the complex trial protocol. Both groups showed CIT effects, with a larger probe than irrelevant P300s at Pz. However, this effect was significantly larger in the suspect group. In contrast, only the suspect group showed delayed N200/N300 responses at F3—putative inhibitory signs. This supports the klein Selle et al. (2016) ANS study in that the suspect versus witness role-playing manipulation differentially affected inhibitory (vs. orienting) aspects of the CIT situation. Our results are also consistent with Ambach, Stark, Peper, & Vaitl (2008), who saw the same autonomic response fractionation as klein Selle et al., but using Furedy's differentiation of deception method (Furedy, Davis, & Gurevich, 1988). These similarities are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)640-648
Number of pages9
JournalPsychophysiology
Volume54
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Keywords

  • Arousal inhibition (AI)
  • Complex trial protocol
  • Concealed Information Test (CIT)
  • N200
  • N300
  • Orienting response (OR)
  • P300

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Neurology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Biological Psychiatry

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'P300 amplitude at Pz and N200/N300 latency at F3 differ between participants simulating suspect versus witness roles in a mock crime'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this