Rosenfeld J P, Angell A, Johnson M, Qian J H
Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, Evanston, Illinois 60201.
Psychophysiology. 1991 May;28(3):319-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb02202.x.
Two experimental, P3-based analog control question tests were run. In both, guilty subjects were presented with a set of seven phrases describing antisocial acts of which they were innocent, plus one phrase describing a guilty act (the analog relevant question), and one act to which a "yes" response (yes-target stimulus) was required to assure attention. Innocent subjects (run only in Experiment 1) saw all innocent acts plus the yes-target act. Thus nine acts were seen by guilty and innocent subjects. In both experiments, all subjects had to selectively review their guilty acts privately. Also in both experiments, all subjects were especially questioned about four acts of which guilty subjects were known to be innocent of all but one, and of which innocent subjects were known to be innocent of all. (These falsely accused acts were regarded as control question analogs.) In Experiment 1, the private review and rehearsal took place on the same day as the main test. In Experiment 2, one subgroup (delay-only) of guilty subjects was run as in Experiment 1, except that the private review-rehearsal was separated from the main run by 7-14 days. Another subgroup (delay-rehearsal) of guilty subjects was run just as was the subgroup delay-only, except that the delay-rehearsal subgroup additionally received a non-selective additional interrogation/rehearsal on the delayed main run day. Parietally maximal P3 responses were obtained to yes-target items in all groups. In Experiment 1, only in the guilty group was the relevant-minus-control P3 amplitude difference significant. In Experiment 2, the difference was significant only in the delay-rehearsal subgroup. A four-step algorithm (involving relevant-control amplitude differences and relevant target vs. control-target cross-correlations) was used to assess effects within individuals. In Experiment 1, 12 of 13 guilty subjects and 13 of 15 innocent subjects were correctly diagnosed. In Experiment 2, 3 of 8 delay-only subjects and 7 of 8 delay-rehearsal subjects were correctly diagnosed. In Experiment 2, the relevant-minus-control group P3 amplitude difference was significant in the delay-rehearsal but not in the delay-only subgroup. The results suggest that temporally proximal, non-selective rehearsal procedures are sufficient to activate personal knowledge of a salient (oddball), P3-generating stimulus phrase, and that even selective rehearsal of guilty acts is not sufficient without temporal proximity.
进行了两项基于P3的实验性模拟控制问题测试。在这两项测试中，有罪的受试者会看到一组七个描述他们并未实施的反社会行为的短语，再加上一个描述有罪行为的短语（模拟相关问题），以及一个需要回答“是”（是目标刺激）以确保注意力的行为。无辜的受试者（仅在实验1中测试）会看到所有无辜行为以及是目标行为。因此，有罪和无辜的受试者都看到了九个行为。在两项实验中，所有受试者都必须私下选择性地回顾他们的有罪行为。同样在两项实验中，所有受试者都被特别询问了四个行为，已知有罪的受试者除了其中一个行为外对其他行为均无罪，而无辜的受试者对所有这些行为均无罪。（这些被错误指控的行为被视为控制问题模拟。）在实验1中，私下回顾和排练与主要测试在同一天进行。在实验2中，有罪受试者的一个亚组（仅延迟组）的测试方式与实验1相同，只是私下回顾排练与主要测试相隔7至14天。有罪受试者的另一个亚组（延迟排练组）的测试方式与仅延迟组相同，只是延迟排练组在延迟的主要测试日额外接受了一次非选择性的额外询问/排练。所有组对是目标项目均获得了顶叶最大P3反应。在实验1中，只有有罪组的相关减去控制P3波幅差异显著。在实验2中，差异仅在延迟排练亚组中显著。使用一种四步算法（涉及相关控制波幅差异以及相关目标与控制目标的互相关）来评估个体内部的效应。在实验1中，13名有罪受试者中的12名和15名无辜受试者中的13名被正确诊断。在实验2中，8名仅延迟组受试者中的3名和8名延迟排练组受试者中的7名被正确诊断。在实验2中，相关减去控制组P3波幅差异在延迟排练亚组中显著，但在仅延迟亚组中不显著。结果表明，时间上接近的非选择性排练程序足以激活对一个突出的（异常的）、产生P3的刺激短语的个人知识，并且如果没有时间上的接近，即使对有罪行为进行选择性排练也不够。
