The effects of sweep numbers per average and protocol type on the accuracy of the p300-based concealed information...

In the first of two experiments, we compared the accuracy of the P300 concealed information test protocol as a function of numbers of trials experienced by subjects and ERP averages analyzed by investigators. Contrary to Farwell et al. (Cogn Neurodyn 6(2):115-154, 2012), we found no evidence that 100 trial based averages are more accurate than 66 or 33 trial based averages (all numbers led to accuracies of 84-94 %). There was actually a trend favoring the lowest trial numbers. The second study compared numbers of irrelevant stimuli recalled and recognized in the 3-stimulus protocol versus the complex trial protocol (Rosenfeld in Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 63-89, 2011). Again, in contrast to expectations from Farwell et al. (Cogn Neurodyn 6(2):115-154, 2012), there were no differences between protocols, although there were more irrelevant stimuli recognized than recalled, and irrelevant 4-digit number group stimuli were neither recalled nor recognized as well as irrelevant city name stimuli. We therefore conclude that stimulus processing in the P300-based complex trial protocol-with no more than 33 sweep averages-is adequate to allow accurate detection of concealed information.