Method for detecting deception

• US 20020062089A1
• Filed: 08/28/2001
• Published: 05/23/2002
• Est. Priority Date: 08/28/2000
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: City College of New York
• Original Assignee: City College of New York
• Inventors: Johnson, Ray Jr.
• Granted Patent: US 6,754,524 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 600/544
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/164 Lie detection
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/377 using evoked responses
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/7203 for noise prevention, reduction or removal

Abstract

The present invention provides a novel and reliable method for detecting deception in a subject. Deception as well as confabulation may be characterized by detectable changes in a (ERP) activity and/or behavioral responses to stimuli. These changes occur in one or more measures or markers of brain activity or behavioral activity referred to herein as “the neural and behavioral signature of deception.” The method is independent of the intent to commit deception.

Claims

1. A method for determining whether a subject responds deceptively comprising

a) presenting the subject with a test series of stimuli;

b) presenting the subject with a control series of stimuli;

c) monitoring the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, associated with the subject'"'"'s response to the test series and control series of stimuli;

d) comparing the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, obtained from the responses to the test series and control series of stimuli;

wherein a difference in the activity between the test and control stimuli indicates that the subject is responding deceptively.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the electrophysiological activity comprises event-related brain potential (ERP).

3. The method of claim 1, wherein behavioral activity comprises speed of response, variability in response speed and accuracy of response.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising presenting the subject with catch trials.

5. The method of claim 2, wherein the difference in activity is a larger maximal amplitude between 0 and 100 ms after response over central-frontal scalp in response-locked ERP averages.

6. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller maximal amplitude over parietal-central scalp between 400-800 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked averages or a smaller maximal amplitude between −

100 before response and +300 ms after response in response-locked averages.

7. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a larger negativity maximal over occipital and inferior temporal scalp between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages.

8. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller medial frontal-central scalp maximal positivity between −

100 and 0 ms before response in response-locked ERP averages.

9. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller medial frontal-central scalp maximal positivity between 100 and 200 ms after response in response-locked ERP averages.

10. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a larger negative shift between −

100 before and +200 ms after response maximal over medial central-frontal scalp in response-locked ERP averages.

11. The method of claim 3 wherein the difference in activity is a slower speed of response.

12. The method of claim 3 wherein the difference in activity is a larger variability of speed of response.

13. The method of claim 4 wherein the difference in activity is a slower speed of response in catch trials.

14. The method of claim 4 wherein the difference in activity is a larger variability of speed of response in catch trials.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the electrophysiological activity comprises event-related brain potentials (ERPs).

17. The method of claim 15, wherein behavioral activity comprises speed of response, variability in response speed and accuracy of response.

18. The method of claim 15, further comprising presenting the subject with catch trials.

19. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller P300 amplitude increase over parietal scalp between 400 and 800 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages and between −

100 before to +300 ms after response in response-locked ERP averages.

20. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller decrease in maximal negativity over occipital scalp between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages.

21. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller increase in positivity over medial frontal-central scalp between −

100 and 0 ms before response in response-locked ERP averages.

22. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller decrease in ERN over medial central-frontal scalp between 0 and 100 ms after response in response-locked ERP averages.

23. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller increase positivity over medial central-frontal scalp between 100 and 200 ms after response in response-locked ERP averages.

24. The method of claim 16 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller positive shift maximal over medial central-frontal scalp between −

100 before and +200 ms after in response-locked ERP averages.

25. The method of claim 17 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller decrease in speed of responses.

26. The method of claim 17 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller decrease in variability in speed of responses.

27. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is an increased P300 latency.

28. The method of claim 3 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller response accuracy.

29. The method of claim 4 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller response accuracy in catch trials.

30. The method of claim 2 wherein the difference in activity is a difference in ERN scalp distribution.

15. A method for determining whether a subject responds deceptively comprising

a) presenting the subject with one or more sets of stimuli, each set comprising a test series of stimuli and a control series of stimuli;

b) monitoring the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, associated with the subject'"'"'s response to each set of stimuli; and

c) comparing the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, obtained from the responses to one set of stimuli to the activity from another set of stimuli;

wherein a difference in the activity between the sets of stimuli indicates that the subject is responding deceptively.

31. A method for determining whether a subject possesses guilty knowledge comprising

a) presenting the subject with a test series of stimuli wherein the test series of stimuli comprises an equal number of relevant and irrelevant items;

b) presenting the subject with a control series of stimuli wherein the control series of stimuli comprises an equal number of relevant and irrelevant items;

c) monitoring the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, associated with the subject'"'"'s response to the test series and control series of stimuli;

d) comparing the subject'"'"'s electrophysiological activity, behavioral activity, or both, obtained from the responses to the test series and control series of stimuli;

wherein a difference in the activity between the relevant and irrelevant items indicates that the subject possesses guilty knowledge.

32. The method of claim 31, wherein the electrophysiological activity comprises event-related brain potential (ERP).

33. The method of claim 31 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller negativity maximal over left central-frontal scalp between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages for relevant than for irrelevant items.

34. The method of claim 31 wherein the difference in activity is a larger positivity maximal over left-parietal occipital scalp between 500 and 800 ms after stimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages for relevant than for irrelevant items.

35. The method of claim 31 wherein the difference in activity is a smaller negativity maximal over occipital and inferior lateral scalp between 300 and 500 ms after strimulus in stimulus-locked ERP averages for relevant than for irrelevant items.