The first independent study on the complex trial protocol version of the P300-based concealed information test: Corroboration of previous findings and highlights on vulnerabilities

More than a dozen studies of the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test have been published since its introduction (Rosenfeld et al., 2008), and it has been fairly consistently proven to provide high accuracy and strong resistance to countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al., 2013). However, no independent authors have verified these findings until now. In the present, first independent study, we corroborate the accuracy and countermeasure-resistance of the CTP, when the probe item (critical presented information, e.g., crime detail; P) vs. all irrelevant items (Iall) comparison is used for classifying participants as guilty or innocent, but we also show that the CTP is severely vulnerable to countermeasures, when the P vs. the irrelevant item with the largest P300 responses (Imax) comparison is used. This latter measure can be defeated by creating “oddball” items among the irrelevant items (through targeting them with covert responses), and thereby making their P300 responses statistically indistinguishable from those of the probe item. Practical implications are discussed.

Distractor inhibition contributes to retroactive attentional orienting within working memory: Evidence by lateralized alpha oscillations in the EEG

Shifts of attention within mental representations based on retroactive cues (retro-cues) facilitate performance in working memory tasks. It was suggested that this retro-cue benefit is related to the concentration of working memory resources on a subset of representations, thereby improving storage and retrieval at the cost of non-cued items. However, the attentional mechanisms underlying this updating of working memory representations remain unknown. Here, we present EEG data for distinguishing between target enhancement and distractor suppression processes in the context of retroactive attentional orienting. Therefore, we used a working memory paradigm with retro-cues indicating a shift of attention to either a lateralized or non-lateralized item. There was an increase of posterior alpha power contralateral compared to ipsilateral to the irrelevant item when a non-lateralized mental representation was cued and a contralateral suppression of posterior alpha power when a lateralized item had to be selected. This suggests that both inhibition of the non-cued information and enhancement of the target representation are important features of attentional orienting within working memory. By further presenting cues to either remember or to forget a working memory representation, we give a first impression of these retroactive attentional sub-processes as two separable cognitive mechanisms.

Memory Strength Effects in fMRI Studies: A Matter of Confidence

To investigate potentially dissociable recognition memory responses in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex, fMRI studies have often used confidence ratings as an index of memory strength. Confidence ratings, although correlated with memory strength, also reflect sources of variability, including task-irrelevant item effects and differences both within and across individuals in terms of applying decision criteria to separate weak from strong memories. We presented words one, two, or four times at study in each of two different conditions, focused and divided attention, and then conducted separate fMRI analyses of correct old responses on the basis of subjective confidence ratings or estimates from single- versus dual-process recognition memory models. Overall, the effect of focussing attention on spaced repetitions at study manifested as enhanced recognition memory performance. Confidence- versus model-based analyses revealed disparate patterns of hippocampal and perirhinal cortex activity at both study and test and both within and across hemispheres. The failure to observe equivalent patterns of activity indicates that fMRI signals associated with subjective confidence ratings reflect additional sources of variability. The results are consistent with predictions of single-process models of recognition memory.