Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Validity of the Comparison Question Test: An fMRI Study

폴리그라프 비교질문검사의 타당성: fMRI 연구

  • Jeon, Hajung (Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Eum, Young-Ji (Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Sohn, Jin-Hun (Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Eom, Jin-Sup (Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University)
  • Received : 2018.03.06
  • Accepted : 2018.06.18
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The logical assumption of the comparison question test (CQT) is that the guilty person pays more attention to the relevant questions than to the comparison questions, and that the innocent person pays more attention to the comparison questions than to the relevant questions. The purpose of this study was to verify the logic of the comparison question test using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The participants were tested for brain responses during a mock crime and performed the CQT under guilty and innocent conditions. After brain imaging, we evaluated the psychological burden of responding to the relevant questions and comparison questions. In the guilty conditions, the degree of burden was higher for the relevant questions than the comparison questions, and there was no significant difference in the innocent conditions. The fMRI results showed that, in the guilty conditions, greater activation was observed in the right superior temporal gyrus and right inferior frontal gyrus when relevant questions were presented relative to comparison questions. Based on these findings, the logical assumption of the CQT was discussed.

비교질문 검사의 논리적 가정은 유죄인 조사대상자는 비교질문보다 관련질문에 주의를 더 기울이고 무죄인 조사대상자는 관련질문보다 비교질문에 주의를 더 기울인다는 것이다. 본 연구는 기능적자기공명영상(fMRI)을 이용하여 비교질문검사의 논리적 타당성을 검증하였다. 이를 위하여 실험참여자에게 모의 범죄를 수행하도록 한 후 유죄조건과 무죄조건에서 비교질문검사를 실시하면서 뇌 반응을 측정하였다. 뇌 영상을 촬영한 후에는 관련질문과 비교질문에 '아니오'라고 응답하는 것이 얼마나 심리적으로 부담되는지를 평가하도록 하였다. 행동 반응 결과, 유죄조건에서 비교질문보다 관련질문에 '아니오'라고 응답하는 것이 더 부담이 되는 것으로 나타났고 무죄조건에서는 두 질문 유형 간에 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 뇌 반응 결과, 유죄조건에서는 비교질문에 비해 관련질문이 제시되었을 때 우측 상측두회와 우측 하전두회에서 더 큰 활성화가 관찰되었다. 그러나 무죄조건 분석 결과 질문유형에 따른 뇌 영역 활성화 차이는 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과에 근거하여 유죄조건과 무죄조건에 대한 비교질문검사의 논리적 가정을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Acheson, D. J. & Hagoort, P. (2013). Stimulating the brain's language network: syntactic ambiguity resolution after TMS to the inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(10), 1664-1677. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00430
  2. Backster, C. (1963). The Backster chart reliability rating method. Law and Order, 1, 63-64.
  3. Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). Handbook of polygraph testing(pp.103-126). San Diego: Academic Press.
  4. Ben-Shakhar, G. & Elaad, E. (2002). The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: Future prospects and obstacles. andbook of polygraph testing(pp.87-102). San Diego: Academic Press.
  5. Ben-Shakhar, G., Gamer, M., Iacono, W., Meijer, E., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015). International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(1), 16-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.582
  6. Ben-Shakhar, G. & Furedy, J. J. (2012). Theories and applications in the detection of deception: A psychophysiological and international perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
  7. Buschman, T. J. & Miller, E. K. (2007). Top-down versus bottom-up control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices. Science, 315(5820), 1860-1862. DOI: 10.1126/science.1138071
  8. Cabeza, R., Ciaramelli, E., Olson, I. R., & Moscovitch, M. (2008). The parietal cortex and episodic memory: an attentional account. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(8), 613-625. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2459
  9. Corbetta, M. & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature reviews neuroscience, 3(3), 201-215. DOI: 10.1038/nrn755
  10. Christ, S. E., Van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cerebral Cortex, 19(7), 1557-1566. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn189
  11. Davis, R. C. (1961). Physiological responses as a means of evaluating information. In A. Biderman & H. Zimmer (Eds.), The manipulation of human behavior. New York: Wiley.
  12. Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(28), 7900-7905. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00345
  13. Elaad, E. (2003). Is the Inference Rule of the "Control Question Polygraph Technique" Plausible?. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(1), 37-47. DOI: 10.1080/10683160308143
  14. Han, Y. H. & Park, K. (2008). The cutoff criterion and the accuracy of the polygraph test for crime investigation. Korean Journal of Psychological and Social Issues, 14(4), 103-117.
  15. Han, Y. H. & Park, K. (2009). Validity of the basic assumption underlying the comparison question technique(CQT) for forensic lie detection. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 28(2), 471-484.
  16. Honts, C. R. (2003). Participants perceptions support rationale of comparison question tests for psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 40, S48. DOI: 10.1111/1469-8986.40.s1.1
  17. Horvath, F. & Palmatier, J. J. (2008). Effect of two types of control questions and two question formats on the outcomes of polygraph examinations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 889-899. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00775.x
  18. Iacono, W. G. (2011). Encouraging the use of the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT): What the GKT has to offer law enforcement. In B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar, & E. Meijer(Eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test(pp.12-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511975196.002
  19. Jeong, J-Y., Kim, J-H., Kang, M-G., Kim, Y-M., Ji, H-K., Kim, K-H., & Lee, J-H. (2010). Estimating the accuracy of polygraph for cases involving opposing statements. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 24(1), 1-10.
  20. Kozel, F. A., Johnson, K. A., Mu, Q., Grenesko, E. L., Laken, S. J., & George, M. S. (2005). Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 58(8), 605-613. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.07.040
  21. Langleben, D. D. & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 222-234. DOI: 10.1037/a0028841
  22. Lee, H. J., Wi, S. A., & Kim, B. J. (2015). A study of aggression and delinquent behavior -Focusing on gender difference and change-. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 20(4), 675-695. https://doi.org/10.18205/kpa.2015.20.4.012
  23. Lykken, D. T. (1988). Detection of guilty knowledge: A comment on Forman and McCauley. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 303-304. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.303
  24. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Press.
  25. MacNeill, A. L., Bradley, M. T., Cullen, M. C., & Arsenault, A. M. (2014). Cognitive and emotional reactions to questions in the comparison question test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 118(2), 429-445. DOI: 10.2466/22.03.pms.118k20w9
  26. Mohamed, F. B., Faro, S. H., Gordon, N. J., Platek, S. M., Ahmad, H., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation-initial experience. Radiology, 238(2), 679-688. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382050237
  27. National Research Council (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.17226/10420
  28. Nunez, J. M., Casey, B. J., Egner, T., Hare, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control. Neuroimage, 25(1), 267-277. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.041
  29. Offe, H. & Offe, S. (2007). The comparison question test: Does it work and if so how?. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 291-303. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9059-3
  30. Palmatier, J. J. & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(1), 3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.001
  31. Podlesny, J. A. (2003). A paucity of operable case facts restricts applicability of the guilty knowledge technique in FBI criminal polygraph examinations. Forensic Science Communications, 5(3).
  32. Raskin, D. C. & Honts, C. R. (2002). The Comparison Question Test. In Murray Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing(pp.1-47). San Diego: Academic Press.
  33. Reid, J. E. & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception: The polygraph ("lie-detector") technique. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  34. Shomstein, S. & Yantis, S. (2006). Parietal cortex mediates voluntary control of spatial and nonspatial auditory attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(2), 435-439. DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.4408-05.2006
  35. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport, 12(13), 2849-2853. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019
  36. Stuss, D. T. (1992). Biological and psychological development of executive functions. Brain and Cognition, 20(1), 8-23. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2626(92)90059-u