P300测谎技术研究
摘要
“说谎”作为一个概念或者行为现象,不唯只凸现于当今社会,从目前我们所拥有的“吉光片羽”的古代文档中,可以看出其在人类社会的早期就已存在。而上世纪80年代在儿童认知发展研究领域兴起的第三次研究浪潮——围绕“心理理论”的研究与探讨,以一种“无心插柳柳成荫”的方式将有关个体说谎发生、发展的研究向前推进了一大步,从信念的层面对说谎的界定问题注入了新鲜的血液。
而说谎行为在元道德的范围内是绝对禁止,在一般社会生活环境中也是不被提倡的。但是,与这种道德要求或者说社会期待相左的是,在日常生活中,“谎言无处不在”。大量的研究证实,说谎是一种日常生活事件,它频繁地出现于我们与他人的社会互动或社会交往中,对个体和社会的影响极深。这种影响是积极还是消极,人们的观感并不统一。但是,无可否认,几乎所有不同文化、不同种族的人类群体都尝试着使用一些方法来“识别谎言”。并且,随着认识的深入和经验的积累,测谎方法的演进带着明显的精细化和有效化的趋势。
在19世纪末到20世纪初的大约20多年里,一种借助医学仪器(更为准确地说是生理采集仪器),且标准化和客观性更强的现代测谎方法——心理生理测谎(Psychophysiological Detection of Deception,PDD)技术出现了,使得人类识别谎言的研究和探索前进了一大步。现今,PDD技术在司法领域大展身手,常会出现在侦查或审判中的关键位置上,有时甚至决定着审判的结果。PDD的应用引发了种种复杂的问题,涉及到了科学(scientific)、社会(social)、法律(legal)和伦理(ethical)等各方面,其中法律方面的问题尤为突出。这是因为,从整体上看,PDD技术的准确率始终徘徊在90%左右,其诊断结论还不足以达到法庭证据可靠性的要求。其次,它缺乏良好的科学理论基础,“心理生理反应与试图说谎的心理状态之间并没有建立起紧密的联系”,没有理论可以确定某种心理生理反应的出现是因为“试图说谎”的心理状态而非其它心理状态导致的。另外,大量的研究已经表明,以皮电、呼吸和血压为判断指标的PDD技术可以比较轻松地被反测试技术打败。
上世纪后半叶兴起的认知神经科学(Cognitive Neuroscience)所发展的新方法和新技术为解决以上问题提供了可能性。功能性磁共振成像(functional magnetic resonance imaging,fMRI)与事件相关电位(event-related potential,ERP)技术逐渐被应用于测谎领域中。其中,以P300这一ERP成分为基础的测谎技术脱颖而出,并且在2000年首次应用于实案审判中。但事实上,P300测谎技术目前仍处于基础研究阶段,其测谎范式、理论基础、诊断有罪或无辜的具体指标及其正确率、反-反测试的能力等问题都尚未解决。另外,作为一项来自心理学应用分支学科——法律心理学的研究,为未来的司法实践服务应是本研究的基本立足点。因此,P300测谎技术在实务中的可操作性,以及已经在实务中广泛应用的PDD技术所面临的种种困境,也是本研究要面对的问题。
基于以上认识,本研究在模拟犯罪情景(mock crime scenario)研究方法的基础上做了一定改进,并以此为探测事件,进行了一系列研究,共包括4个子研究。研究发现:模拟犯罪情景和实案情景(real crime situation)之间的鸿沟是无法忽视的,模拟犯罪情景研究方法确有弱点;而在其基础上的改进方法获得了我们所期待的P300成分,证实了P300测谎的可行性;PDD以及P300测谎技术所依赖的最基本的心理机制应该是“意义效应(significance effect)”所引发的注意机制;最佳的P300测谎范式应是三刺激范式,并要求被试对靶和非靶刺激都做出行为反应;P300测谎确实有着良好的反-反测试作用,并可能具有较高的“击中率”和“漏报率”,而这正是司法背景下对于无法避免的错误更倾向接受的局面。因此,P300测谎技术应用于司法实务之日并不遥远。
According to precious documents, we are sure that as a concept or behavior, lying can be found not only in today's social, but also in the ancient world. The third wave in the field of Children's Cognitive Development, research on“Theory of Mind”greatly promotes the research level and definition about lying or deception. Despite being forbidden by almost all societies, lying is everywhere in our daily life and makes a strong impact on human sociality. There is no agreement whether the impact is positive or negative, but all kinds of culture and ethnic human groups have developed many methods to detect lies or deception. In the twenty years from the 19th century to the 20th century,based on the medicine machine Polygraph, Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) came out. Because of standardization and objectivity, PDD has been widely applied in the forensic field now. At the same time, it brings up all kinds of complicated problems dealing with scientific、social、legal and ethical aspects, especially legal problems. The new techniques, fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and ERP (event-related potential) from Cognitive Neuroscience make it possible to resolve those problems. Based on the modified mock crime scenario, the study practices a series of ERP laboratory experiments. The major findings of the study include the following: there is a gap between mock crime scenario and real crime situation; significance effect is the theoretical foundation of lie detection; P300-based detection of lie in target paradigms is feasible; P300-based detection of lie is an effective counter-countermeasure measure.
而说谎行为在元道德的范围内是绝对禁止,在一般社会生活环境中也是不被提倡的。但是,与这种道德要求或者说社会期待相左的是,在日常生活中,“谎言无处不在”。大量的研究证实,说谎是一种日常生活事件,它频繁地出现于我们与他人的社会互动或社会交往中,对个体和社会的影响极深。这种影响是积极还是消极,人们的观感并不统一。但是,无可否认,几乎所有不同文化、不同种族的人类群体都尝试着使用一些方法来“识别谎言”。并且,随着认识的深入和经验的积累,测谎方法的演进带着明显的精细化和有效化的趋势。
在19世纪末到20世纪初的大约20多年里,一种借助医学仪器(更为准确地说是生理采集仪器),且标准化和客观性更强的现代测谎方法——心理生理测谎(Psychophysiological Detection of Deception,PDD)技术出现了,使得人类识别谎言的研究和探索前进了一大步。现今,PDD技术在司法领域大展身手,常会出现在侦查或审判中的关键位置上,有时甚至决定着审判的结果。PDD的应用引发了种种复杂的问题,涉及到了科学(scientific)、社会(social)、法律(legal)和伦理(ethical)等各方面,其中法律方面的问题尤为突出。这是因为,从整体上看,PDD技术的准确率始终徘徊在90%左右,其诊断结论还不足以达到法庭证据可靠性的要求。其次,它缺乏良好的科学理论基础,“心理生理反应与试图说谎的心理状态之间并没有建立起紧密的联系”,没有理论可以确定某种心理生理反应的出现是因为“试图说谎”的心理状态而非其它心理状态导致的。另外,大量的研究已经表明,以皮电、呼吸和血压为判断指标的PDD技术可以比较轻松地被反测试技术打败。
上世纪后半叶兴起的认知神经科学(Cognitive Neuroscience)所发展的新方法和新技术为解决以上问题提供了可能性。功能性磁共振成像(functional magnetic resonance imaging,fMRI)与事件相关电位(event-related potential,ERP)技术逐渐被应用于测谎领域中。其中,以P300这一ERP成分为基础的测谎技术脱颖而出,并且在2000年首次应用于实案审判中。但事实上,P300测谎技术目前仍处于基础研究阶段,其测谎范式、理论基础、诊断有罪或无辜的具体指标及其正确率、反-反测试的能力等问题都尚未解决。另外,作为一项来自心理学应用分支学科——法律心理学的研究,为未来的司法实践服务应是本研究的基本立足点。因此,P300测谎技术在实务中的可操作性,以及已经在实务中广泛应用的PDD技术所面临的种种困境,也是本研究要面对的问题。
基于以上认识,本研究在模拟犯罪情景(mock crime scenario)研究方法的基础上做了一定改进,并以此为探测事件,进行了一系列研究,共包括4个子研究。研究发现:模拟犯罪情景和实案情景(real crime situation)之间的鸿沟是无法忽视的,模拟犯罪情景研究方法确有弱点;而在其基础上的改进方法获得了我们所期待的P300成分,证实了P300测谎的可行性;PDD以及P300测谎技术所依赖的最基本的心理机制应该是“意义效应(significance effect)”所引发的注意机制;最佳的P300测谎范式应是三刺激范式,并要求被试对靶和非靶刺激都做出行为反应;P300测谎确实有着良好的反-反测试作用,并可能具有较高的“击中率”和“漏报率”,而这正是司法背景下对于无法避免的错误更倾向接受的局面。因此,P300测谎技术应用于司法实务之日并不遥远。
According to precious documents, we are sure that as a concept or behavior, lying can be found not only in today's social, but also in the ancient world. The third wave in the field of Children's Cognitive Development, research on“Theory of Mind”greatly promotes the research level and definition about lying or deception. Despite being forbidden by almost all societies, lying is everywhere in our daily life and makes a strong impact on human sociality. There is no agreement whether the impact is positive or negative, but all kinds of culture and ethnic human groups have developed many methods to detect lies or deception. In the twenty years from the 19th century to the 20th century,based on the medicine machine Polygraph, Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) came out. Because of standardization and objectivity, PDD has been widely applied in the forensic field now. At the same time, it brings up all kinds of complicated problems dealing with scientific、social、legal and ethical aspects, especially legal problems. The new techniques, fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and ERP (event-related potential) from Cognitive Neuroscience make it possible to resolve those problems. Based on the modified mock crime scenario, the study practices a series of ERP laboratory experiments. The major findings of the study include the following: there is a gap between mock crime scenario and real crime situation; significance effect is the theoretical foundation of lie detection; P300-based detection of lie in target paradigms is feasible; P300-based detection of lie is an effective counter-countermeasure measure.
引文
①《旧约·出埃及记》,第20章第16节。
②[俄]尤里·谢尔巴特赫著:《欺诈术与欺诈心理》,徐永平,储诚意译,华文出版社2006年版,第3页。
③同上。
①原名为Aurelius Augstinus(354-430),因被教廷封圣,故世人称为圣奥古斯丁(Saint Augustine或St. Augustine)。
②Augustine, A.. "On Lying" and "Against Lying".In R. J. Deferrari(ed).Saint Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects.New York:Catholic University of America Press,1952:pp.86.
①Barnes, J. A.. A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994:pp.1.
②Sacks, H.. Everyone Has to Lie. In M.Sanches and B. G. Blount(Eds.).Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press,1975:pp.57-80.
③Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K.. Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory. 1996, 6: pp.203-242.
④Galasinski, D.. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
①原文为:A "social interaction" was defined as "any exchange between you and another person that lasts 10 min or more…,in which the behavior of one person is in response to the behavior of another person."参见DePaulo, M. B., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol,S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A.. Lying in Everyday Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996,(70):pp.979-995.
②Josephson, M.. 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. Los Angeles,CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics,1998.
③Prater, T. & Kiser, S.B.. Lies, Lies, and More Lies. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 2002,2(67) : pp.9-36.
①Anderson, N.H..Likeableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words.The Journal of Social Psychology.1968,9:272-279.
②Habermas, J.. Communication and the Evolution of Society.( T. McCarty Trans). Cambridge: Polity Press,1979.
③Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind & Language. 2002,17: pp.3–23.
④Lewis, M..The Development of Deception.In M.Lewis & C.Saarni(Eds.),Lying and Deception in Everyday Life.The Guilford Press,1993:pp90-105.
⑤Nyberg, D.. The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
①Stott, F. M.. Special Feature: Why Young Children Lie. Early Childhood Today. 2005,5(19):pp.8-9.
②Aitchison, J.. The Language of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
③Tenejapa是墨西哥最南端Chiapas州的119个自治地区中的一个,此地区所使用的语言主要为Tzeltal语。Tzeltal语属于古玛雅语言(Mayan language)的一个分支,目前大约有280,000人使用这一语言,因其未受现代文明的污染而成为语言人类学家研究最佳对象。
④Brown, P.. Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka, and C. E. Snow(Eds.). Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2002:pp.241-275.
⑤Talwar, V. & Lee, K.. Development of Lying to Conceal a Transgression: Children's Control of Expressive Behavior during Verbal Deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002,5(26):pp.436-444.
①DePaulo, B.M. & Kashy, D. A.. Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998,(74):pp.63-79.
②McCornack, S. & Levine, T.. When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. Communication Monographs.1990,3(57):pp.219-230.
①Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Press. 1998: pp.24.
①Matte,J.A..Forensic Psychophysiology:Using the Polygraph.New York:JAM Publications,1996.
②奚玮、吴小军:《中国古代“五听”制度述评》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第2期,第107-112页。
③Bull, R.. What is the Lie-Detection Test? In A. Gale (Ed.), The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science. London: Sage,1988: pp.11-12.
④Kleiner, M.. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
⑤National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
①Krapohl, D. & Sturm, S.. Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph. 2002,31(3):pp.154-239.
②Palmiotto, M. J.. Historical Review of Lie-Detection Methods Used in Detecting Criminal Acts. Canadian Police College Journal.1983,3(7):pp.206-216.
③Grubin,D. & Madsen,L.. Lie Detection and the Polygraph: A Historical Review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology.2005,2(16):pp.357-369.
④Cesare Lombroso. L’Homme Criminal.Paris:Felix Alcan,1895.
⑤Marston, W.M.. Systolic Blood Pressure Symptoms of Deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1917, 2(2):pp.117-163.
⑥Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938.
⑦Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938:pp.45.
①Keeler, L.. Problems in the Use of the "Lie Detector". Police Year Book 1938-1939. Washington, DC: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1939:pp.136-142.of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.103-126.
①Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientificevidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2).St. Paul, MN: West Law,2002:pp. 483–538.
②Lykken, D. T.. Psychology and the Lie Detection Industry. American Psychologist.1974,29:pp. 725–739.
③Fukumoto, J.. A Case in Which the Polygraph was the Sole Evidence for Conviction. Polygraph.1980 9:pp.42–44.
④Nakayama, M.. Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,2002:pp.49–86.
⑤Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Cohen, A.. Behavioral and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Concealed Information. Journal of Applied Psychology.2005,90:pp.147-158.
①McCloud, D.G.. A Survey of Polygraph Utilization. Law and Order.1991.
②Weaver, R. S.. Effects of Differing Numerical Chart Evaluation Systems on Polygraph Examination Results. Polygraph. 1985,14:pp.34-41.
③Backster, C.. Outside "Super-Dampening" Factor. Military Police Journal.1964,Jan:pp.20-21.
④Capps, M. H., Hnill, B. L. & Evans, R. K.. Effectiveness of the Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.1993,22(4):pp.285-298.
⑤Backster, C.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan“Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.”Polygraph.2001a,30(3):pp.213-215.
⑥Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., & Gordon, A.. Validity of Outside-Issue Questions in the Control Question Test. Final Report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no.N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666, 2000.
⑦Krapohl, D.J., & Ryan, A.H.. A Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.Polygraph.2001,30(3): pp.206-212.
⑧Matte, J.A.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan Criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans Research. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.216-217.
①Krapohl, D.J.. A Brief Rejoinder to Matte & Grove Regarding“Psychological Set”. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.203-205.
②Matte, J.A., & Grove, R.N.. Psychological Set: Its Origin, Theory and Application. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.196-202.
③Verfaellie, M., Bauer, R. M., & Bowers, D.. Autonomic and Behavioral Evidence of“Implicit”Memory in Amnesia. Brain and Cognition. 1991,15:pp.10-25.
①Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E.. Single versus Multiple Probe Blocks of P300-based Concealed Information Information Tests for Autobiographical versus Incidentally Obtained Information. Biological Psychology.2007,74(3):pp.396-404.
②Ben-Shakhar, G..Future Prospects of Psychophysiological Detection: Replacing the CQT by the GKT, In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, Vol. 4.Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.,1991:pp.283-289.
③Lykken, D.T.. The GSR in the Detection of Guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology.1959,43:pp.385-388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2):pp.123-128.
①MacLaren, V.. A Qualitative Review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001,86(4):pp.674-683.
②Podlesny, J.A..Is the Guilty Knowledge Polygraph Technique Applicable in Criminal Investigations?: A Review of FBI Case Records. Crime Laboratory Digest.1993,20(3):pp.57-61.
③Barland, G.H., Honts, C.R., & Barger, S.D.. The Validity of Detection of Deception for Multiple Issues. Psychophysiology.1989,26(4a Supplement):pp.13.
④Honts, C.R.. Criterion Development and Validity of the CQT in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology.1996,123(4):pp.309-324.
①Ohkawa, Hisatsugi.Comparison of Physiological Response of "Yes", "No", and "Mute" Conditions in Peak of Tension Test. Reports of the National Institute of Police Science,1963.
②Horvath, F.S.. The Polygraph Silent Answer Test. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science.1972,63(2):pp.285-293.
③Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E.. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph(“Lie Detector”) Technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins,1977.
①Howland, D.P.. Positive Control Question Technique Pre-test Interview and Chart Interpretation. Polygraph.1981,10(1):pp.37-41.
①Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P. & Jayne, B.C.. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions(4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers,2001.
②O’Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S.. Honest and Integrity Testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources,1989.
①Horvath, F.. Polygraphic Screening of Candidates for Police Work in Large Police Agencies in the United States: A Survey of Practices, Policies, and Evaluative Comments. American Journal of Police.1993,12(4):pp.67-86.
②Ansley, N. and Garwood, M.. The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph Testing. US Department of Defense Report. Washington, DC, 1984.
③Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques:The Case for Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Saunders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing,1997:pp.565-582.
④Lykken, D.T.. Polygraphic Interrogation. Nature.1984,387:pp.681–684.
①Frye v. United States., 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923).
①Carroll, J.. Toward a Structural Psychology of Cinema.New York: Mouton,1980.
②Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M.. Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005.
③Wigmore, J. H.. Professor Münsterberg and the Psychology of Testimony: Being a Report of the Case of Cokestone v. Münsterberg. Illinois Law Review.1909,3:pp.399–445.
④Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637 (U.S. App, D.C., 1962).
⑤Gold, J. Victor. Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. Nebraska Law Review,1987.
①Bernstein, E. David. Junk Science In The United States And The Commomwealth. 21 Yale J. Int’l L..1996,123:pp.124.
②Jonakait, N. Randolph. Scientific Evidence After the Death of Frye Criminal Forensics and DNA Evidence: The Meaning of Daubert what that Means for Forensic Science. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1994, 2103:pp.2103.
③Sanders, Joseph. Scientific Validity, Admissibility, and Mass Torts After Daubert.78 Minn. L. Rev.1994,1387:pp.1388-1389.
④[台]简资修著:《经济推理与法律》,北京大学出版社2003年第1版。
⑤Citro, A. Vincent. Playing"pin the tail on the truth"in the Eleventh Circuit:why polygraph evidence should be excluded in Federal courts. 30 Stetson L.Rev.2000(Fall):pp.725.
①Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation-A Technical Memorandum. Rep. TM-H-15. Washington, DC: U.S.Congress: Office of Technology Assessment,1983.
②American Polygraph Association. Polygraph: Issues and answers. Severna Park, MD: American Polygraph Association, 1996.
③Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J.. What Psychologists should Know about Lie Detection. In AK Hess & IB Weiner (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1987.
④宇传华,《诊断试验的评价(第十三章)》,见余松林主编,《医学统计学(7年制规划教材)》,人民卫生出版社2002年版,第164-178页。
①Masip, Jaume. Eugenio Garrido and Carmen Herrero. The Nonverbal Approach to the Detetion of Deception: Judgemental Accuracy. Psychology in Spain, 2004, 8(1):pp.48-59.
②原文为“a tight link is not established from the physiological responses to the psychological states presumably tied to deception.”National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003:P.48.
③Messick, S.. Validity. In Linn, R. (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: Macmillan,1989:pp. 13-103.
④Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case against Polygraph Tests. In D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J.Saks, & J.Sanders(Eds.). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing ,1997:pp. 446-483.
①Davis, R. C.. Physiological Responses as A Means of Evaluating Information. In A.Biderman, & H. Zimmer (Eds.). Manipulation of Human Behavior.New York: Wiley, 1961:pp.142-168.
②Gustafson, L. A., & Orne, M. T.. Effects of Heightened Motivation on the Detection of Deception. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1963,47:pp.108-411.
①Podlesny, J.A., & Raskin, D.C.. Effectiveness of Techniques and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.344-358.
②Raskin, D.C., & Hare, R.D.. Psychopathy and Detection of Deception in A Prison Population. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.126-136.
③Ben-Shakhar, G.. Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information. Psychophysiology.1977,14:pp.408-413.
④Ben-Shakhar, G. & Dolev, K.. Psychophysiological Detection through the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Mental Countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81:pp.273 -281.
⑤Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C.. Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994, 79:pp.252-259.
①参见[美]查尔斯·福特著:《说谎:你所不知道的一切》,高卓、张葆华、林达译,新华出版社2001年版,第243页。
②Honts, C.R., & Amato, S.L.. Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.).Handbook of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002:pp.151-264.
③Krapohl, D.J.. A Taxonomy of Polygraph Countermeasures. Polygraph.1996,25(1):pp.35-56.
④Rosenfeld, P. J., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. & Ryan, A.. Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300- based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information.Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.205-219.
⑤Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L.. Using Response Time Measures to Assess“Guilty Knowledge”. Journal of Applied Psychology.2000,85:pp.30-37.
①Rosenfeld P.J., Cantwell, B., Nasman, T.V., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., Mazzeri, L.. A Modified, Event-related Potential-based Guilty Knowledge Test. Int J Neurosci, 1988, 42:pp.157-161.
②Spence, A.S., Hunter, D.M., Farrow, F.T., Green, D.R., Leung, H.D., Hughes,J. C., Ganesan, V..A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.2004,359:pp.1755-1762.
①Glees,P.. The Human Brain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1988.
①Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A.,et al.. Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study. NeuroImage. 2002,15:pp.727–732.
②Langleben, D. D., Loughead, W. J., Bilker, B.W.,et al..Telling Truth From Lie in Individual Subjects With Fast Event-Related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping.2005,26:pp.262–272.
①Nunez, M.J., Casey,J.B., Egner, T. et al.. Intentional False Responding Shares Neural Substrates with Response Conflict and Cognitive Control. Neuroimage,2005,25:pp.267–277.
②Zarahn, E., Rakitin, B., Abela, D. et al.. Positive Evidence against Human Hippocampal Involvement in Working Memory Maintenance of Familiar Stimuli. Cereb Cortex.2005, 15:pp.303–316.
③Spence,A. S., Farrow,F.T., Herford,E.A. et al.. Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans. Neuroreport. 2001,12:pp.2849-2853.
④Lee, M.T., Liu, L.H., Tan,H.L. et al.. Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Hum Brain Mapp.2002, 15:pp.157-164.
①Ganis, G., Kosslyn,M.S., Stose, S. et al..Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex.2003,13:pp.830-836.
②Mohamed, B.F., Faro,H.S., Gordon,J.N. et al.. Brain Mapping of Deception and Truth Telling about An Ecologically Valid Situation: An fMRI and Polygraph Investigation-initial Experience. Radiology.2006, 238:pp.679-688.
①Rosenfeld, J.P., Nasman, T. V., Whalen, R. et al.. Late Vertex Positivity as A Guilty Knowledge Indicator: A New Method of Lie Detection. Int. J. Neurosc.1987, 34:pp.125-129.
②Farwell, A.L. & Donchin, E. The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event Related Potentials. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.531-547.
③Rosenfeld, J.P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. An ERP-based Control Question Lie Detector Analog: Algorithms for Discriminating Effects within Individual Waveforms. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.320-336.
④Johnson, M.M. & Rosenfeld, J.P. A New ERP-based Deception Detector Analog II: Utilization of Non-selective Activation of Relevant Knowledge. Int. J. Psychophysiology.1992, 12:pp.289-306.
⑤Allen, J. J., & Iacono, W. G.. A Comparison of Methods for the Analysis of Event-related Potentials in Deception Detection. Psychophysiology. 1997,34:pp.234–240.
⑥Allen, J. J., Iacono, W. G., & Danielson, K. D.. The Developmentand Validation of An Event-related Potential Memory Assessment Procedure: A Methodology for Prediction in the Face of Individual Differences. Psychophysiology. 1992,29:pp.504–522.
①Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R.. Evoked Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science. 1965, 150:pp.1187-1188.
①Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. II. Effects of Attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1974,36:pp.191-199.
②Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Endogenous Event Related Potentials. In T.W. Picton (Ed.), Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3): Human Event Related Potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier,1988:pp.361-426.
③陶春丽、罗非:《“新异刺激”模型和P300》,《生理科学进展》2004年第3期,第265-268页。
④Tueting, P.. Event-related Potentials, Cognitive Events, and Information Processing. In D. A. Otto(Ed.). Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-Related Brain Potential Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978:pp.159-69.
①Fang Fang,Liu Yitao & Shen Zheng.Lie Detection with Contingent Negative Variation. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2003,3(50):pp.247-255.
②Farwell, L. A., & Smith, S. S.. Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2001,46(1):pp.135–143.
①Lawrence A. Farwell, Supplement to Forensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington. Nov. 10, 2000:pp.32.
②Donchin E, Karis D, Bashore R.T. et al.. Cognitivepsychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications. In Coles,MGH, Donchin, E., Porges, S.(Eds.). Psychophysiology: Systems,Processes, and Applications. New York: The Guilford Press,1986:p.244–267.
③Courchesne, E., Hillyard S.A., Galambos, R.. Stimulus Novelty, Task Relevance and the Visual Evoked Potential in Man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.1975, 39:pp.131-143.
④Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E.. Augmenting Mental Chronometry: The P300 as A Measure of Stimulus Evaluation Time. Science. 1977, 197:pp.792-795.
⑤Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., John, E.R.. Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential. Science.1967, 155(768):pp.436-439.
⑥MacLaren, V. V. & Taukulis, H. K.. Forensic Identification Using Event-related Potentials. Polygraph. 2000,29(4):pp.330-343.
①McCarthy,G., Donchin, E.. A Metric for Thought: A Comparison of P300 Latency and Reaction Time. Science. 1981,211:pp.77–80.
②Polich, J.. Task Difficulty, Probability, and Inter-stimulus Interval as Determinants of P300 from Auditory Stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987,68:pp.311–20.
③Snyder, E., Hillyard, S.A. & Galambos, R.. Similarities and Differences among the P3 Waves to Detected Signals in Three Modalities. Psychophysiology.1980, 17:pp.112–122.
①Polich,J.. Bifurcated P300 Peaks:P3a and P3b Revisited. Clin Neurophysiol.1988,5:pp.287-294.
①Karis, D., Fabiani, M. & Donchin, E.. P300 and Recall in An Incidental Memory Paradigm. Psychophysiology.1986,23:pp.298–308.
①Farah, M. J.. Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience.Nature Neuroscience. 2002,5:pp.1123–1129.
②Foster, K. R., Wolpe, P. R. and Caplan, A.. Bioethics and the Brain. IEEE Spectrum.2003, June: pp.34–39
③Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R. A. et al.. Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research.Neurology.2004, 62(6):pp.888–890.
④Wolpe, P. R.. Treatment, Enhancement, and the Ethics of Neurotherapeutics. Brain and Cognition. 2002,50:pp.387–395.
⑤Wolpe, P. R.. Neuroethics. In S. G. Post(ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
⑥Ford E. B., Lie Detection: Historical, Neuropsychiatric and Legal Dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.2006,29(3):pp.159-177.
⑦Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Furedy, J.J.. P300-based Detection of Concealed Autobiographical versus Incidentally Acquired Information in Target and Non-target Paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 60:pp.251-259.
①Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., Khalilzadeh, M. A.. A Comparison of Methods for ERP Assessment in A P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 62:pp.309-320.
①Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., & Jhee, M.. P300 Amplitude and Topography Distinguish between Honest Performance and Feigned Amnesia in An Autobiographical Oddball Task. J. Psychophysiology. 2002,16:pp.1-11.
②Ellwanger, J. W., Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J., et al. Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-related Potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1996, 23:pp.9-23.
③Mertens, R., Allen, J. Culp, N., & Crawford, L.. The Detection of Deception Using Event-related Potentials in A Highly Realistic Mock Crime Scenario. Psychophysiology.2003,40:pp.60.
①杨文俊、陈文明:《识认熟悉者照片时视觉事件相关电位的研究》,《心理学报》1993年第4期,第415-419页。
②廖四照、杨文俊、罗一峰、潘速跃:《房间照片视觉事件相关电位用于测谎的实验研究》,《第一军医大学学报》1996年第4期,第278-281页。
③周亮、杨文俊:《P300用于模拟盗窃测谎的实验性研究》,《中国临床心理学杂志》1999年第1期,第31-33页。
①舒华、程元善、张厚粲:《235个图形的命名一致性、熟悉性、表象一致性和视觉复杂性评定》,《心理学报》1989年第4期,第389-396页。
①Rosenfeld, J. P., Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.2005, 4(1):pp.20-37.
①买晓琴、罗劲、吴建辉、罗跃嘉:《猜谜作业中顿悟的ERP效应》,《心理学报》2005年第1期,第19-25页。
①Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G.. Psychopathy, Threat, and Polygraph Test Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989,74:pp.347–355.
①Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M..Trial by Polygraph: Reconsidering the Use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in Court. Law and Human Behavior.2002, 26:pp.527-541.
②Ekman, P.. Telling Les. New York: Norton,1985.
①Halgren, E., Squires, K. N., Wilson, L.C. et al.. Endogenous Potentials Generated in the Human Hippocampal Formation and Amygdala by Infrequent Events. Science. 1980,210(4471):pp.803-805.
②Okada, C.Y., Kaufman, L., Williamson, J. S.. The Hippocampal Formation as A Source of the Slow Endogenous Potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983, 55:pp.417-426.
③Polich, J. & Kok, A.. Cognitive and Biological Determinants of P300: Anintegrative Review. Biol Psychol. 1995,41:pp.103-146.
①Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clerq, A., Koster, E.H.W.. Autonomic and Behavioral Responding to Concealed Information: Differentiating Orienting and Defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.461-466.
②Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J.. Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Testing: Current Status and Emerging Trends. In I.B. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology(3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 2006:pp.552-588.
①Vincent, A., & Furedy, J. J.. Electrodermal Differentiation of Deception: Potentially Confounding and Influencing Factors. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1992,13:pp. 129–136.
①Wolpe,R.P., Foster,R.K., Langleben, D.D.. Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-detection: Promises and Perils. Am J Bioeth. 2005,5:pp.39-49.
1. [希腊]赫西俄德著:《工作与时日·神谱》,张竹明、蒋平译,商务印书馆1991年版。
2. [美]Stephen M. Miller & Robert V. Huber著:《圣经的历史》,黄剑波译,中央编译出版社2008年版。
3. [俄]尤里·谢尔巴特赫著:《欺诈术与欺诈心理》,徐永平,储诚意译,华文出版社2006年版。
4. [美]查尔斯·福特著:《说谎:你所不知道的一切》,高卓、张葆华、林达译,新华出版社2001年版。
5. [美]希赛拉·鲍克著:《公共生活与私人生活中的道德选择》,张彤华、王立影编译,吉林科学技术出版社1989版。
6. [英]Aldert Vrij著:《说谎心理学》,郑红丽译,中国轻工业出版社2005年版。
7. [台]简资修著:《经济推理与法律》,北京大学出版社2003年第1版。
8.宇传华,《诊断试验的评价(第十三章)》,见余松林主编,《医学统计学(7年制规划教材)》,人民卫生出版社2002年版,第164-178页。
9.罗跃嘉主编:《认知神经科学教程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
10.高鸿钧:《法律成长的精神向度》,《环球法律评论》2003年冬季号,第434-457页。
11.奚玮、吴小军:《中国古代“五听”制度述评》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第2期,第107-112页。
12.陶春丽、罗非:《“新异刺激”模型和P300》,《生理科学进展》2004年第3期,第265-268页。
13.杨文俊、陈文明:《识认熟悉者照片时视觉事件相关电位的研究》,《心理学报》1993年第4期,第415-419页。
14.廖四照、杨文俊、罗一峰、潘速跃:《房间照片视觉事件相关电位用于测谎的实验研究》,《第一军医大学学报》1996年第4期,第278-281页。
15.周亮、杨文俊:《P300用于模拟盗窃测谎的实验性研究》,《中国临床心理学杂志》1999年第1期,第31-33页。
16.舒华、程元善、张厚粲:《235个图形的命名一致性、熟悉性、表象一致性和视觉复杂性评定》,《心理学报》1989年第4期,第389-396页。
17.买晓琴、罗劲、吴建辉、罗跃嘉:《猜谜作业中顿悟的ERP效应》,《心理学报》2005年第1期,第19-25页。
1. Augustine, A. "On Lying" and "Against Lying".In R. J. Deferrari(ed). Saint Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects. New York: Catholic University of America Press,1952.
2. Barnes, J. A.. A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
3. Sacks, H.. Everyone Has to Lie. In M.Sanches and B. G. Blount(eds.). Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press,1975: pp.57-80.
4. Galasinski, D.. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
5. Habermas, J.. Communication and The Evolution of Society.( T. McCarty Trans). Cambridge: Polity Press,1979.
6. Lewis, M..The Development of Deception. In M.Lewis & C.Saarni(Eds.), Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. The Guilford Press,1993: pp90-105.
7. Nyberg,D.. The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
8. Aitchison,J.. The Language of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
9. Brown,P.. Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka, and C. E. Snow(Eds.). Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002:pp. 241-275.
10. Serban, G.. Lying: Man's Second Nature. Westport, CT: Praeger,2001.
11. Barnes, J.A.. Models and Interpretations: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.
12. Augustine, A..“De Mendacio”.In Opuscules.II. Problèmes moraux. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer et Cie, 1948:pp.244-245.
13. Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life.New York:Pantheon Books,1978.
14. Sweetser, E. E.. The Definition of Lie: An Examination of the Folk Models Underlying a Semantic Prototype. In D. Holland & N. Quinn(Eds.). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987:pp.43-66.
15. Leekman, R.S.. Believing and Deceiving: Steps to Becoming A Good Liar. In S. J. Ceci, M.DeSimone Leichtman & M. Putnick(Eds.). Cognitive and Social Factor in Early Deception. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 1992: pp.47-62.
16. Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Press, 1998.
17. Larson, J.A.. Lying and its Detection. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1932.
18. Matte, J. A.. Forensic Psychophysiology: Using the Polygraph. New York: JAM Publications, 1996.
19. Bull, R.. What is the Lie-Detection Test? In A. Gale (Ed.), The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science. London: Sage,1988: pp.11-12.
20. Kleiner, M.. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
21. National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
22. Cesare Lombroso. L’Homme Criminal.Paris:Felix Alcan,1895.
23. Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938.
24. Sullivan, E.. The Concise Book of Lying. New York: Picador, 2001.
25. Abrams, S.. The Complete Polygraph Handbook. Lexington Books, 1989.
26. Inbau,F.. Lie Detection and Criminal Interrogation(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams 8s Wilkins, 1948.
27. Raskin, D.C.. Polygraph Techniques for the Detection of Deception. In D.C. Raskin (Ed.). Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence.New York: Springer-Verlag,1989.
28. Ben-Shakhar, G.. A Critical Review of the Control Question Test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.),Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.103-126.
29. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientificevidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2).St. Paul, MN: West Law,2002:pp. 483-538.
30. Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Trade, 1998.
31. Nakayama, M.. Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,2002:pp.49-86.
32. Ben-Shakhar, G..Future Prospects of Psychophysiological Detection:Replacing the CQT by the GKT, In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, Vol. 4.Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.,1991:pp.283-289.
33. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E.. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph(“Lie Detector”) Technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins,1977.
34. Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P. & Jayne, B.C.. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions(4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers,2001.
35. O’Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S.. Honest and Integrity Testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources,1989.
36. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques:The Case for Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Saunders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing,1997:pp.565-582.
37. Lasagna, Louis & Shulman, Sheila R.. Bendectin and the Language of Causation. In Foster, Kenneth R. & Bernstein, David E. & Huber, Peter W. (Eds.), Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1993.
38. Daniels, C.W.. Legal Aspects of Polygraph Admissibility in the United States. In Handbook of Polygraph Testing (ed. M. Kleiner). San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
39. Carroll, J.. Toward a Structural Psychology of Cinema.New York: Mouton,1980.
40. Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M.. Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005.
41. American Polygraph Association. Polygraph: Issues and answers. Severna Park, MD: American Polygraph Association, 1996.
42. Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J.. What Psychologists should Know about Lie Detection. In AK Hess & IB Weiner (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1987.
43. Messick, S.. Validity. In Linn, R. (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: Macmillan,1989:pp.13-103.
44. Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T.. The Scientific Status of Research onPolygraph Techniques: The Case against Polygraph Tests. In D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J.Saks, & J.Sanders(Eds.). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing ,1997:pp. 446-483.
45. Davis, R. C.. Physiological Responses as A Means of Evaluating Information. In A.Biderman, & H. Zimmer (Eds.). Manipulation of Human Behavior.New York: Wiley, 1961:pp.142-168.
46. Raskin, D. C.. Orienting and Defensive Reflexes in the Detection of Deception. In H. D. Kimmel, I. H. Van Olst, & J. F. Orlebeke (Eds.). The Orienting Reflex in Humans. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980:pp.587-605.
47. Honts, C.R., & Amato, S.L.. Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.).Handbook of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.151-264.
48. Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R.. Cognitive Neurosience: the Biology of the Brain (2nd ed.). New York: W. W.Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.
49. Glees,P.. The Human Brain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1988.
50. Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Endogenous Event Related Potentials. In T.W. Picton (Ed.), Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3): Human Event Related Potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier,1988:pp.361-426.
51. Tueting, P.. Event-related Potentials, Cognitive Events, and Information Processing. In D. A. Otto(Ed.). Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-Related Brain Potential Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978:pp.159-69.
52. Donchin E, Karis D, Bashore R.T. et al.. Cognitivepsychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications. In Coles,MGH, Donchin, E., Porges, S.(Eds.). Psychophysiology: Systems,Processes, and Applications. New York: The Guilford Press,1986:p.244-267.
53. Wolpe, P. R.. Neuroethics. In S. G. Post(ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
54. Ekman, P.. Telling Les. New York: Norton,1985.
55. Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J.. Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Testing: Current Status and Emerging Trends. In I.B. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology(3rd ed.). New York: Wiley,2006: pp.552-588.
56. DePaulo, M. B., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol,S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A.. Lying in Everyday Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996,(70):pp.979-995.
57. Buller, D. B. and Burgoon, J. K.. Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory. 1996, 6: pp.203-242.
58. Prater, T. & Kiser, S.B.. Lies, Lies, and More Lies. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 2002,2(67) : pp.9-36.
59. Anderson, N.H.. Likeableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words. The Journal of Social Psychology.1968,9:272-279.
60. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind & Language.2002,17:pp.3-23.
61. Stott, F. M.. Special Feature: Why Young Children Lie. Early Childhood Today. 2005,5(19):pp.8-9.
62. Talwar, V. & Lee, K.. Development of Lying to Conceal a Transgression: Children's Control of Expressive Behavior during Verbal Deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002,5(26): pp.436-444.
63. Flavell, J. H.. Cognitive Development: Children’s Knowledge about the Mind. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999,(50):pp.21-45.
64. Premack, D. & Woodruff, G.. Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.1978,4:pp.515-526.
65. Wimmer, H. & Perner, J.. Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Function of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children’s Understanding of Deception. Cognition.1983,13:pp.103-128.
66. Povinelli, D. J. & Giambrone, S.. Reasoning about Beliefs : A Human Specialization. Developmental Psychology. 2001,3(72):pp.691-695.
67. Sodian,B., Taylor,C., & Perner.J.. Early Deception and The Child's Theory of Mind: False Trails and Genuine Markers. Child Development. 1991,(62): pp.468—483.
68. Perner,J., Leekam, S. R. & Wimmer, H.. Three-year Olds' Difficulty with False Belief: The Case for A Conceptual Deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.1987,5:pp.125-137.
69. Hala, S., Chandler, M.& Fritz, S. A.. Fledglingtebories of Mind: Deception as A Marker of 3-year-olds’Understanding of False Belief. Child Development.1991,(61):pp.83-97.
70. Coleman, L. & Kay, P.. Prototypes Semantics: The English word Lie.Language.1981,1(57): pp.26-45.
71. Masip, J., Garrido, E. & Herrero, G.. Defining Deception. Anales de Psicologia. 2004, 1(20): pp.147-171.
72. Hyman, R.. The Psychology of Deception. Annual Review of Psychology. 1989, (40):pp.133-154.
73. Chisholm, M.R. & Feehan, T.D.. The Intent to Deceive. Journal of Philosophy. 1977,(74):pp.143-159.
74. Chandler,M., Fritz, S.A. & Hala, S.. Small Scale Deceit: Deception as A Marker of Two-, Three-, and Four-year-olds’Early Theories of Mind. Child Development. 1989, 6(60):pp.1263-1277.
75. Carson, T.L.. The Definition of Lying. Nous.2006,2(40),pp:284-306.
76. DePaulo, B. M. & Kashy, D. A.. Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998, (74):pp.63-79.
77. McCornack, S. & Levine, T.. When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. Communication Monographs.1990,3(57):pp.219-230.
78. Trovillo, P.Y.. A History of Lie Detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.1939, 29(6):pp.848-881.
79. Krapohl, D. & Sturm, S.. Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph. 2002,31(3): pp. 154-239.
80. Palmiotto, M. J.. Historical Review of Lie-Detection Methods Used in Detecting Criminal Acts. Canadian Police College Journal.1983, 3(7): pp.206-216.
81. Grubin,D. & Madsen,L.. Lie Detection and the Polygraph: A Historical Review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 2005,2(16): pp.357-369.
82. Marston, W.M.. Systolic Blood Pressure Symptoms of Deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1917, 2(2):pp.117-163.
83. Summers, W.G.. Science Can Get the Confession. Fordham Law Review. 1939, 8:pp.335-354.
84. Reid, J.E.. A Revised Questioning Technique in Lie Detection Tests. J. Crim. Law Criminol.1947, 37:pp.542-547.
85. Backster, C.. Methods of Strengthening our Polygraph Technique. Police. 1962, 6(5):pp.61-68.
86. Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C.. A Field Study of the Validity of the Directed lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration.1988, 16:pp.56-61.
87. Lykken, D. T.. Psychology and the Lie Detection Industry. American Psychologist.1974,29:pp. 725-739.
88. Fukumoto, J.. A Case in Which the Polygraph was the Sole Evidence for Conviction. Polygraph.1980 9:pp.42-44.
89. Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Cohen, A.. Behavioral and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Concealed Information. Journal of Applied Psychology.2005,90:pp.147-158.
90. Weaver, R. S.. Effects of Differing Numerical Chart Evaluation Systems on Polygraph Examination Results. Polygraph. 1985,14: pp.34 -41.
91. Backster, C.. Outside "Super-Dampening" Factor. Military Police Journal.1964,Jan:pp.20-21.
92. Capps, M. H., Hnill, B. L. & Evans, R. K.. Effectiveness of the Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.1993,22(4):pp.285-298.
93. Backster, C.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan“Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.”Polygraph.2001a,30(3):pp.213-215.
94. Krapohl, D.J., & Ryan, A.H.. A Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.2001,30(3): pp.206-212.
95. Matte, J.A.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan Criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans Research. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.216-217.
96. Krapohl, D.J.. A Brief Rejoinder to Matte & Grove Regarding“Psychological Set”. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.203-205.
97. Matte, J.A., & Grove, R.N.. Psychological Set: Its Origin, Theory and Application. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.196-202.
98. Verfaellie, M., Bauer, R. M., & Bowers, D.. Autonomic and Behavioral Evidence of“Implicit”Memory in Amnesia. Brain and Cognition. 1991,15: pp.10-25.
99. Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E.. Single versus Multiple Probe Blocks of P300-based Concealed Information Information Tests for Autobiographical versus Incidentally Obtained Information. Biological Psychology.2007,74(3):pp.396-404.
100. Lykken, D.T.. The GSR in the Detection of Guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology.1959,43:pp.385-388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2): pp.123-128.
101. MacLaren, V.. A Qualitative Review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001,86(4):pp.674-683.
102. Podlesny, J.A..Is the Guilty Knowledge Polygraph Technique Applicable in Criminal Investigations?: A Review of FBI Case Records. Crime Laboratory Digest.1993,20(3):pp.57-61.
103. Barland, G.H., Honts, C.R., & Barger, S.D.. The Validity of Detection of Deception for Multiple Issues. Psychophysiology.1989,26(4a Supplement): pp.13.
104. Honts, C.R.. Criterion Development and Validity of the CQT in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology.1996,123(4):pp.309-324.
105. Horvath, F.S.. The Polygraph Silent Answer Test. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science.1972,63(2):pp.285-293.
106. Howland, D.P.. Positive Control Question Technique Pre-test Interview and Chart Interpretation. Polygraph.1981,10(1):pp.37-41.
107. Horvath, F.. Polygraphic Screening of Candidates for Police Work in Large Police Agencies in the United States: A Survey of Practices, Policies, and Evaluative Comments. American Journal of Police.1993, 12(4):pp.67-86.
108. Lykken, D.T.. Polygraphic Interrogation. Nature.1984,387: pp.681 -684.
109. Wigmore, J. H.. Professor Münsterberg and the Psychology of Testimony: Being a Report of the Case of Cokestone v. Münsterberg. Illinois Law Review.1909,3:pp.399-445.
110. Bernstein, E. David. Junk Science In The United States And The Commonwealth. 21 Yale J. Int’l L..1996,123:pp.124.
111. Jonakait, N. Randolph. Scientific Evidence After the Death of Frye Criminal Forensics and DNA Evidence: The Meaning of Daubert what that Means for Forensic Science. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1994, 2103:pp.2103.
112. Sanders, Joseph. Scientific Validity, Admissibility, and Mass Torts After Daubert.78 Minn. L. Rev.1994,1387:pp.1388-1389.
113. Masip, Jaume. Eugenio Garrido and Carmen Herrero. The Nonverbal Approach to the Detetion of Deception: Judgemental Accuracy. Psychology in Spain, 2004, 8(1):pp.48-59.
114. Gustafson, L. A., & Orne, M. T.. Effects of Heightened Motivation on the Detection of Deception. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1963,47: pp.108-411.
115. Podlesny, J.A., & Raskin, D.C.. Effectiveness of Techniques and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception. Psychophysiology. 1978,15:pp.344-358.
116. Raskin, D.C., & Hare, R.D.. Psychopathy and Detection of Deception in A Prison Population. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.126-136.
117. Ben-Shakhar, G.. Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information. Psychophysiology.1977,14:pp.408-413.
118. Ben-Shakhar, G. & Dolev, K.. Psychophysiological Detection through the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Mental Countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81:pp.273 -281.
119. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C.. Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994, 79:pp.252-259.
120. Krapohl, D.J.. A Taxonomy of Polygraph Countermeasures. Polygraph.1996, 25(1):pp.35-56.
121. Rosenfeld, P. J., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. & Ryan, A.. Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information. Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.205-219.
122. Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L.. Using Response Time Measures to Assess“Guilty Knowledge”. Journal of Applied Psychology.2000,85:pp.30-37.
123. Rosenfeld P.J., Cantwell, B., Nasman, T.V., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., Mazzeri, L.. A Modified, Event-related Potential-based Guilty Knowledge Test. Int J Neurosci, 1988, 42:pp.157-161.
124. Spence, A.S., Hunter, D.M., Farrow, F.T., Green, D.R., Leung, H.D., Hughes,J. C., Ganesan, V..A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.2004,359:pp.1755-1762.
125. Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A.,et al.. Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study. NeuroImage. 2002,15:pp.727-732.
126. Langleben, D. D., Loughead, W. J., Bilker, B.W.,et al..Telling Truth From Lie in Individual Subjects With Fast Event-Related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping.2005,26:pp.262-272.
127. Nunez, M.J., Casey,J.B., Egner, T. et al.. Intentional False Responding Shares Neural Substrates with Response Conflict and Cognitive Control. Neuroimage,2005,25:pp.267-277.
128. Zarahn, E., Rakitin, B., Abela, D. et al.. Positive Evidence against Human Hippocampal Involvement in Working Memory Maintenance of Familiar Stimuli. Cereb Cortex.2005, 15:pp.303-316.
129. Spence,A. S., Farrow,F.T., Herford,E.A. et al.. Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans. Neuroreport. 2001,12:pp.2849-2853.
130. Lee, M.T., Liu, L.H., Tan,H.L. et al.. Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Hum Brain Mapp.2002, 15:pp.157-164.
131. Ganis, G., Kosslyn,M.S., Stose, S. et al..Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex. 2003,13: pp.830-836.
132. Mohamed, B.F., Faro,H.S., Gordon,J.N. et al.. Brain Mapping of Deception and Truth Telling about An Ecologically Valid Situation: An fMRI and Polygraph Investigation-initial Experience. Radiology.2006, 238:pp.679 -688.
133. Rosenfeld, J.P., Nasman, T. V., Whalen, R. et al.. Late Vertex Positivity as A Guilty Knowledge Indicator: A New Method of Lie Detection. Int. J. Neurosc.1987, 34:pp.125-129.
134. Farwell, A.L. & Donchin, E. The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event Related Potentials. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.531-547.
135. Rosenfeld, J.P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. An ERP-based Control Question Lie Detector Analog: Algorithms for Discriminating Effects within Individual Waveforms. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.320-336.
136. Johnson, M.M. & Rosenfeld, J.P. A New ERP-based Deception Detector Analog II: Utilization of Non-selective Activation of Relevant Knowledge. Int. J. Psychophysiology.1992, 12:pp.289-306.
137. Allen, J. J., & Iacono, W. G.. A Comparison of Methods for the Analysis of Event-related Potentials in Deception Detection. Psychophysiology. 1997,34:pp.234-240.
138. Allen, J. J., Iacono, W. G., & Danielson, K. D.. The Developmentand Validation of An Event-related Potential Memory Assessment Procedure: A Methodology for Prediction in the Face of Individual Differences. Psychophysiology. 1992,29:pp.504-522.
139. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R.. Evoked Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science. 1965, 150:pp.1187 -1188.
140. Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. II. Effects of Attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1974,36: pp.191-199.
141. Fang Fang,Liu Yitao & Shen Zheng.Lie Detection with Contingent Negative Variation. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2003,3(50): pp.247-255.
142. Farwell, L. A., & Smith, S. S.. Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2001,46(1):pp.135-143.
143. Courchesne, E., Hillyard S.A., Galambos, R.. Stimulus Novelty, Task Relevance and the Visual Evoked Potential in Man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.1975, 39:pp.131-143.
144. Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E.. Augmenting Mental Chronometry: The P300 as A Measure of Stimulus Evaluation Time. Science. 1977, 197:pp.792-795.
145. Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., John, E.R.. Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential. Science.1967, 155(768): pp.436 -439.
146. MacLaren, V. V. & Taukulis, H. K.. Forensic Identification Using Event-related Potentials. Polygraph. 2000,29(4):pp.330-343.
147. McCarthy,G., Donchin, E.. A Metric for Thought: A Comparison of P300 Latency and Reaction Time. Science. 1981,211:pp.77-80.
148. Polich, J.. Task Difficulty, Probability, and Inter-stimulus Interval as Determinants of P300 from Auditory Stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987,68:pp.311-20.
149. Snyder, E., Hillyard, S.A. & Galambos, R.. Similarities and Differences among the P3 Waves to Detected Signals in Three Modalities. Psychophysiology.1980, 17:pp.112-122.
150. Polich,J.. Bifurcated P300 Peaks:P3a and P3b Revisited. Clin Neurophysiol. 1988,5:pp.287-294.
151. Karis, D., Fabiani, M. & Donchin, E.. P300 and Recall in An Incidental Memory Paradigm. Psychophysiology.1986,23:pp.298-308.
152. Farah, M. J.. Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience.Nature Neuroscience. 2002,5:pp.1123 -1129.
153. Foster, K. R., Wolpe, P. R. and Caplan, A.. Bioethics and the Brain. IEEE Spectrum.2003, June: pp.34-39
154. Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R. A. et al.. Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research. Neurology.2004, 62(6):pp.888-890.
155. Wolpe, P. R.. Treatment, Enhancement, and the Ethics of Neurotherapeutics. Brain and Cognition. 2002,50:pp.387-395.
156. Ford E. B., Lie Detection: Historical, Neuropsychiatric and Legal Dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.2006, 29(3):pp.159-177.
157. Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Furedy, J.J.. P300-based Detection of Concealed Autobiographical versus Incidentally Acquired Information in Target and Non-target Paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 60:pp.251-259.
158. Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., Khalilzadeh, M. A.. A Comparison of Methods for ERP Assessment in A P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 62:pp.309-320.
159. Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., & Jhee, M.. P300 Amplitude and Topography Distinguish between Honest Performance and Feigned Amnesia in An Autobiographical Oddball Task. J. Psychophysiology. 2002,16: pp.1-11.
160. Ellwanger, J. W., Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J., et al. Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-related Potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1996, 23:pp.9-23.
161. Mertens, R., Allen, J. Culp, N., & Crawford, L.. The Detection of Deception Using Event-related Potentials in A Highly Realistic Mock Crime Scenario. Psychophysiology.2003,40:pp.60.
162. Rosenfeld, J. P., Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.2005, 4(1):pp.20-37.
163. Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G.. Psychopathy, Threat, and Polygraph Test Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989,74:pp.347-355.
164. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M..Trial by Polygraph: Reconsidering the Use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in Court. Law and Human Behavior.2002, 26:pp.527-541.
165. Halgren, E., Squires, K. N., Wilson, L.C. et al.. Endogenous Potentials Generated in the Human Hippocampal Formation and Amygdala by Infrequent Events. Science. 1980,210(4471):pp.803-805.
166. Okada, C.Y., Kaufman, L., Williamson, J. S.. The Hippocampal Formation as A Source of the Slow Endogenous Potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983, 55:pp.417-426.
167. Polich, J. & Kok, A.. Cognitive and Biological Determinants of P300: Anintegrative Review. Biol Psychol. 1995,41:pp.103-146.
168. Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clerq, A., Koster, E.H.W.. Autonomic and Behavioral Responding to Concealed Information: Differentiating Orienting and Defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 2004,41: pp.461-466.
169. Vincent, A., & Furedy, J. J.. Electrodermal Differentiation of Deception: Potentially Confounding and Influencing Factors. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1992,13:pp. 129-136.
170. Wolpe,R.P., Foster,R.K., Langleben, D.D.. Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-detection: Promises and Perils. Am J Bioeth. 2005,5:pp.39-49.
171. Josephson,M.. 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. Los Angeles,CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.1998.
172. Keeler, L.. Problems in the Use of the "Lie Detector". Police Year Book 1938-1939. Washington, DC: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1939:pp.136-142.
173. McCloud, D.G.. A Survey of Polygraph Utilization. Law and Order.1991.
174. Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., & Gordon, A.. Validity of Outside-Issue Questions in the Control Question Test. Final Report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no.N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666,2000.
175. Ohkawa, Hisatsugi.Comparison of Physiological Response of "Yes", "No", and "Mute" Conditions in Peak of Tension Test. Reports of the National Institute of Police Science,1963.
176. Ansley, N. and Garwood, M.. The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph Testing. US Department of Defense Report. Washington, DC, 1984.
177. Frye v. United States., 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923).
178. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F. Supp.570(S.D. Cal.1989).
179. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 F.2d 1128(9th Cir.1991).
180. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998).
181. Mallory v. United States,354 U.S. 449,450,451(1957).
182. United States v. Piccinonna 885 F2d 1529 (1989).
183. Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637 (U.S. App, D.C., 1962).
184. Gold, J. Victor. Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. Nebraska Law Review,1987.
185. Citro, A. Vincent. Playing"pin the tail on the truth"in the Eleventh Circuit: why polygraph evidence should be excluded in Federal courts. 30 Stetson L.Rev.2000(Fall):pp.725.
186. Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation-A Technical Memorandum. Rep. TM-H-15. Washington, DC: U.S.Congress: Office of Technology Assessment,1983.
187. United States v. Harrington,410 F.3d 598(2000).
188. Lawrence A. Farwell, Supplement to Forensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington. Nov. 10, 2000:pp.32.
②[俄]尤里·谢尔巴特赫著:《欺诈术与欺诈心理》,徐永平,储诚意译,华文出版社2006年版,第3页。
③同上。
①原名为Aurelius Augstinus(354-430),因被教廷封圣,故世人称为圣奥古斯丁(Saint Augustine或St. Augustine)。
②Augustine, A.. "On Lying" and "Against Lying".In R. J. Deferrari(ed).Saint Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects.New York:Catholic University of America Press,1952:pp.86.
①Barnes, J. A.. A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994:pp.1.
②Sacks, H.. Everyone Has to Lie. In M.Sanches and B. G. Blount(Eds.).Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press,1975:pp.57-80.
③Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K.. Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory. 1996, 6: pp.203-242.
④Galasinski, D.. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
①原文为:A "social interaction" was defined as "any exchange between you and another person that lasts 10 min or more…,in which the behavior of one person is in response to the behavior of another person."参见DePaulo, M. B., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol,S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A.. Lying in Everyday Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996,(70):pp.979-995.
②Josephson, M.. 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. Los Angeles,CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics,1998.
③Prater, T. & Kiser, S.B.. Lies, Lies, and More Lies. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 2002,2(67) : pp.9-36.
①Anderson, N.H..Likeableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words.The Journal of Social Psychology.1968,9:272-279.
②Habermas, J.. Communication and the Evolution of Society.( T. McCarty Trans). Cambridge: Polity Press,1979.
③Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind & Language. 2002,17: pp.3–23.
④Lewis, M..The Development of Deception.In M.Lewis & C.Saarni(Eds.),Lying and Deception in Everyday Life.The Guilford Press,1993:pp90-105.
⑤Nyberg, D.. The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
①Stott, F. M.. Special Feature: Why Young Children Lie. Early Childhood Today. 2005,5(19):pp.8-9.
②Aitchison, J.. The Language of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
③Tenejapa是墨西哥最南端Chiapas州的119个自治地区中的一个,此地区所使用的语言主要为Tzeltal语。Tzeltal语属于古玛雅语言(Mayan language)的一个分支,目前大约有280,000人使用这一语言,因其未受现代文明的污染而成为语言人类学家研究最佳对象。
④Brown, P.. Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka, and C. E. Snow(Eds.). Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2002:pp.241-275.
⑤Talwar, V. & Lee, K.. Development of Lying to Conceal a Transgression: Children's Control of Expressive Behavior during Verbal Deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002,5(26):pp.436-444.
①DePaulo, B.M. & Kashy, D. A.. Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998,(74):pp.63-79.
②McCornack, S. & Levine, T.. When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. Communication Monographs.1990,3(57):pp.219-230.
①Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Press. 1998: pp.24.
①Matte,J.A..Forensic Psychophysiology:Using the Polygraph.New York:JAM Publications,1996.
②奚玮、吴小军:《中国古代“五听”制度述评》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第2期,第107-112页。
③Bull, R.. What is the Lie-Detection Test? In A. Gale (Ed.), The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science. London: Sage,1988: pp.11-12.
④Kleiner, M.. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
⑤National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
①Krapohl, D. & Sturm, S.. Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph. 2002,31(3):pp.154-239.
②Palmiotto, M. J.. Historical Review of Lie-Detection Methods Used in Detecting Criminal Acts. Canadian Police College Journal.1983,3(7):pp.206-216.
③Grubin,D. & Madsen,L.. Lie Detection and the Polygraph: A Historical Review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology.2005,2(16):pp.357-369.
④Cesare Lombroso. L’Homme Criminal.Paris:Felix Alcan,1895.
⑤Marston, W.M.. Systolic Blood Pressure Symptoms of Deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1917, 2(2):pp.117-163.
⑥Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938.
⑦Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938:pp.45.
①Keeler, L.. Problems in the Use of the "Lie Detector". Police Year Book 1938-1939. Washington, DC: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1939:pp.136-142.of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.103-126.
①Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientificevidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2).St. Paul, MN: West Law,2002:pp. 483–538.
②Lykken, D. T.. Psychology and the Lie Detection Industry. American Psychologist.1974,29:pp. 725–739.
③Fukumoto, J.. A Case in Which the Polygraph was the Sole Evidence for Conviction. Polygraph.1980 9:pp.42–44.
④Nakayama, M.. Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,2002:pp.49–86.
⑤Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Cohen, A.. Behavioral and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Concealed Information. Journal of Applied Psychology.2005,90:pp.147-158.
①McCloud, D.G.. A Survey of Polygraph Utilization. Law and Order.1991.
②Weaver, R. S.. Effects of Differing Numerical Chart Evaluation Systems on Polygraph Examination Results. Polygraph. 1985,14:pp.34-41.
③Backster, C.. Outside "Super-Dampening" Factor. Military Police Journal.1964,Jan:pp.20-21.
④Capps, M. H., Hnill, B. L. & Evans, R. K.. Effectiveness of the Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.1993,22(4):pp.285-298.
⑤Backster, C.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan“Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.”Polygraph.2001a,30(3):pp.213-215.
⑥Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., & Gordon, A.. Validity of Outside-Issue Questions in the Control Question Test. Final Report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no.N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666, 2000.
⑦Krapohl, D.J., & Ryan, A.H.. A Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.Polygraph.2001,30(3): pp.206-212.
⑧Matte, J.A.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan Criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans Research. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.216-217.
①Krapohl, D.J.. A Brief Rejoinder to Matte & Grove Regarding“Psychological Set”. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.203-205.
②Matte, J.A., & Grove, R.N.. Psychological Set: Its Origin, Theory and Application. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.196-202.
③Verfaellie, M., Bauer, R. M., & Bowers, D.. Autonomic and Behavioral Evidence of“Implicit”Memory in Amnesia. Brain and Cognition. 1991,15:pp.10-25.
①Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E.. Single versus Multiple Probe Blocks of P300-based Concealed Information Information Tests for Autobiographical versus Incidentally Obtained Information. Biological Psychology.2007,74(3):pp.396-404.
②Ben-Shakhar, G..Future Prospects of Psychophysiological Detection: Replacing the CQT by the GKT, In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, Vol. 4.Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.,1991:pp.283-289.
③Lykken, D.T.. The GSR in the Detection of Guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology.1959,43:pp.385-388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2):pp.123-128.
①MacLaren, V.. A Qualitative Review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001,86(4):pp.674-683.
②Podlesny, J.A..Is the Guilty Knowledge Polygraph Technique Applicable in Criminal Investigations?: A Review of FBI Case Records. Crime Laboratory Digest.1993,20(3):pp.57-61.
③Barland, G.H., Honts, C.R., & Barger, S.D.. The Validity of Detection of Deception for Multiple Issues. Psychophysiology.1989,26(4a Supplement):pp.13.
④Honts, C.R.. Criterion Development and Validity of the CQT in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology.1996,123(4):pp.309-324.
①Ohkawa, Hisatsugi.Comparison of Physiological Response of "Yes", "No", and "Mute" Conditions in Peak of Tension Test. Reports of the National Institute of Police Science,1963.
②Horvath, F.S.. The Polygraph Silent Answer Test. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science.1972,63(2):pp.285-293.
③Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E.. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph(“Lie Detector”) Technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins,1977.
①Howland, D.P.. Positive Control Question Technique Pre-test Interview and Chart Interpretation. Polygraph.1981,10(1):pp.37-41.
①Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P. & Jayne, B.C.. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions(4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers,2001.
②O’Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S.. Honest and Integrity Testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources,1989.
①Horvath, F.. Polygraphic Screening of Candidates for Police Work in Large Police Agencies in the United States: A Survey of Practices, Policies, and Evaluative Comments. American Journal of Police.1993,12(4):pp.67-86.
②Ansley, N. and Garwood, M.. The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph Testing. US Department of Defense Report. Washington, DC, 1984.
③Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques:The Case for Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Saunders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing,1997:pp.565-582.
④Lykken, D.T.. Polygraphic Interrogation. Nature.1984,387:pp.681–684.
①Frye v. United States., 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923).
①Carroll, J.. Toward a Structural Psychology of Cinema.New York: Mouton,1980.
②Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M.. Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005.
③Wigmore, J. H.. Professor Münsterberg and the Psychology of Testimony: Being a Report of the Case of Cokestone v. Münsterberg. Illinois Law Review.1909,3:pp.399–445.
④Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637 (U.S. App, D.C., 1962).
⑤Gold, J. Victor. Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. Nebraska Law Review,1987.
①Bernstein, E. David. Junk Science In The United States And The Commomwealth. 21 Yale J. Int’l L..1996,123:pp.124.
②Jonakait, N. Randolph. Scientific Evidence After the Death of Frye Criminal Forensics and DNA Evidence: The Meaning of Daubert what that Means for Forensic Science. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1994, 2103:pp.2103.
③Sanders, Joseph. Scientific Validity, Admissibility, and Mass Torts After Daubert.78 Minn. L. Rev.1994,1387:pp.1388-1389.
④[台]简资修著:《经济推理与法律》,北京大学出版社2003年第1版。
⑤Citro, A. Vincent. Playing"pin the tail on the truth"in the Eleventh Circuit:why polygraph evidence should be excluded in Federal courts. 30 Stetson L.Rev.2000(Fall):pp.725.
①Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation-A Technical Memorandum. Rep. TM-H-15. Washington, DC: U.S.Congress: Office of Technology Assessment,1983.
②American Polygraph Association. Polygraph: Issues and answers. Severna Park, MD: American Polygraph Association, 1996.
③Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J.. What Psychologists should Know about Lie Detection. In AK Hess & IB Weiner (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1987.
④宇传华,《诊断试验的评价(第十三章)》,见余松林主编,《医学统计学(7年制规划教材)》,人民卫生出版社2002年版,第164-178页。
①Masip, Jaume. Eugenio Garrido and Carmen Herrero. The Nonverbal Approach to the Detetion of Deception: Judgemental Accuracy. Psychology in Spain, 2004, 8(1):pp.48-59.
②原文为“a tight link is not established from the physiological responses to the psychological states presumably tied to deception.”National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003:P.48.
③Messick, S.. Validity. In Linn, R. (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: Macmillan,1989:pp. 13-103.
④Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case against Polygraph Tests. In D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J.Saks, & J.Sanders(Eds.). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing ,1997:pp. 446-483.
①Davis, R. C.. Physiological Responses as A Means of Evaluating Information. In A.Biderman, & H. Zimmer (Eds.). Manipulation of Human Behavior.New York: Wiley, 1961:pp.142-168.
②Gustafson, L. A., & Orne, M. T.. Effects of Heightened Motivation on the Detection of Deception. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1963,47:pp.108-411.
①Podlesny, J.A., & Raskin, D.C.. Effectiveness of Techniques and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.344-358.
②Raskin, D.C., & Hare, R.D.. Psychopathy and Detection of Deception in A Prison Population. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.126-136.
③Ben-Shakhar, G.. Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information. Psychophysiology.1977,14:pp.408-413.
④Ben-Shakhar, G. & Dolev, K.. Psychophysiological Detection through the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Mental Countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81:pp.273 -281.
⑤Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C.. Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994, 79:pp.252-259.
①参见[美]查尔斯·福特著:《说谎:你所不知道的一切》,高卓、张葆华、林达译,新华出版社2001年版,第243页。
②Honts, C.R., & Amato, S.L.. Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.).Handbook of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002:pp.151-264.
③Krapohl, D.J.. A Taxonomy of Polygraph Countermeasures. Polygraph.1996,25(1):pp.35-56.
④Rosenfeld, P. J., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. & Ryan, A.. Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300- based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information.Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.205-219.
⑤Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L.. Using Response Time Measures to Assess“Guilty Knowledge”. Journal of Applied Psychology.2000,85:pp.30-37.
①Rosenfeld P.J., Cantwell, B., Nasman, T.V., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., Mazzeri, L.. A Modified, Event-related Potential-based Guilty Knowledge Test. Int J Neurosci, 1988, 42:pp.157-161.
②Spence, A.S., Hunter, D.M., Farrow, F.T., Green, D.R., Leung, H.D., Hughes,J. C., Ganesan, V..A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.2004,359:pp.1755-1762.
①Glees,P.. The Human Brain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1988.
①Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A.,et al.. Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study. NeuroImage. 2002,15:pp.727–732.
②Langleben, D. D., Loughead, W. J., Bilker, B.W.,et al..Telling Truth From Lie in Individual Subjects With Fast Event-Related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping.2005,26:pp.262–272.
①Nunez, M.J., Casey,J.B., Egner, T. et al.. Intentional False Responding Shares Neural Substrates with Response Conflict and Cognitive Control. Neuroimage,2005,25:pp.267–277.
②Zarahn, E., Rakitin, B., Abela, D. et al.. Positive Evidence against Human Hippocampal Involvement in Working Memory Maintenance of Familiar Stimuli. Cereb Cortex.2005, 15:pp.303–316.
③Spence,A. S., Farrow,F.T., Herford,E.A. et al.. Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans. Neuroreport. 2001,12:pp.2849-2853.
④Lee, M.T., Liu, L.H., Tan,H.L. et al.. Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Hum Brain Mapp.2002, 15:pp.157-164.
①Ganis, G., Kosslyn,M.S., Stose, S. et al..Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex.2003,13:pp.830-836.
②Mohamed, B.F., Faro,H.S., Gordon,J.N. et al.. Brain Mapping of Deception and Truth Telling about An Ecologically Valid Situation: An fMRI and Polygraph Investigation-initial Experience. Radiology.2006, 238:pp.679-688.
①Rosenfeld, J.P., Nasman, T. V., Whalen, R. et al.. Late Vertex Positivity as A Guilty Knowledge Indicator: A New Method of Lie Detection. Int. J. Neurosc.1987, 34:pp.125-129.
②Farwell, A.L. & Donchin, E. The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event Related Potentials. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.531-547.
③Rosenfeld, J.P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. An ERP-based Control Question Lie Detector Analog: Algorithms for Discriminating Effects within Individual Waveforms. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.320-336.
④Johnson, M.M. & Rosenfeld, J.P. A New ERP-based Deception Detector Analog II: Utilization of Non-selective Activation of Relevant Knowledge. Int. J. Psychophysiology.1992, 12:pp.289-306.
⑤Allen, J. J., & Iacono, W. G.. A Comparison of Methods for the Analysis of Event-related Potentials in Deception Detection. Psychophysiology. 1997,34:pp.234–240.
⑥Allen, J. J., Iacono, W. G., & Danielson, K. D.. The Developmentand Validation of An Event-related Potential Memory Assessment Procedure: A Methodology for Prediction in the Face of Individual Differences. Psychophysiology. 1992,29:pp.504–522.
①Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R.. Evoked Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science. 1965, 150:pp.1187-1188.
①Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. II. Effects of Attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1974,36:pp.191-199.
②Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Endogenous Event Related Potentials. In T.W. Picton (Ed.), Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3): Human Event Related Potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier,1988:pp.361-426.
③陶春丽、罗非:《“新异刺激”模型和P300》,《生理科学进展》2004年第3期,第265-268页。
④Tueting, P.. Event-related Potentials, Cognitive Events, and Information Processing. In D. A. Otto(Ed.). Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-Related Brain Potential Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978:pp.159-69.
①Fang Fang,Liu Yitao & Shen Zheng.Lie Detection with Contingent Negative Variation. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2003,3(50):pp.247-255.
②Farwell, L. A., & Smith, S. S.. Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal.Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2001,46(1):pp.135–143.
①Lawrence A. Farwell, Supplement to Forensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington. Nov. 10, 2000:pp.32.
②Donchin E, Karis D, Bashore R.T. et al.. Cognitivepsychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications. In Coles,MGH, Donchin, E., Porges, S.(Eds.). Psychophysiology: Systems,Processes, and Applications. New York: The Guilford Press,1986:p.244–267.
③Courchesne, E., Hillyard S.A., Galambos, R.. Stimulus Novelty, Task Relevance and the Visual Evoked Potential in Man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.1975, 39:pp.131-143.
④Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E.. Augmenting Mental Chronometry: The P300 as A Measure of Stimulus Evaluation Time. Science. 1977, 197:pp.792-795.
⑤Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., John, E.R.. Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential. Science.1967, 155(768):pp.436-439.
⑥MacLaren, V. V. & Taukulis, H. K.. Forensic Identification Using Event-related Potentials. Polygraph. 2000,29(4):pp.330-343.
①McCarthy,G., Donchin, E.. A Metric for Thought: A Comparison of P300 Latency and Reaction Time. Science. 1981,211:pp.77–80.
②Polich, J.. Task Difficulty, Probability, and Inter-stimulus Interval as Determinants of P300 from Auditory Stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987,68:pp.311–20.
③Snyder, E., Hillyard, S.A. & Galambos, R.. Similarities and Differences among the P3 Waves to Detected Signals in Three Modalities. Psychophysiology.1980, 17:pp.112–122.
①Polich,J.. Bifurcated P300 Peaks:P3a and P3b Revisited. Clin Neurophysiol.1988,5:pp.287-294.
①Karis, D., Fabiani, M. & Donchin, E.. P300 and Recall in An Incidental Memory Paradigm. Psychophysiology.1986,23:pp.298–308.
①Farah, M. J.. Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience.Nature Neuroscience. 2002,5:pp.1123–1129.
②Foster, K. R., Wolpe, P. R. and Caplan, A.. Bioethics and the Brain. IEEE Spectrum.2003, June: pp.34–39
③Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R. A. et al.. Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research.Neurology.2004, 62(6):pp.888–890.
④Wolpe, P. R.. Treatment, Enhancement, and the Ethics of Neurotherapeutics. Brain and Cognition. 2002,50:pp.387–395.
⑤Wolpe, P. R.. Neuroethics. In S. G. Post(ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
⑥Ford E. B., Lie Detection: Historical, Neuropsychiatric and Legal Dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.2006,29(3):pp.159-177.
⑦Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Furedy, J.J.. P300-based Detection of Concealed Autobiographical versus Incidentally Acquired Information in Target and Non-target Paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 60:pp.251-259.
①Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., Khalilzadeh, M. A.. A Comparison of Methods for ERP Assessment in A P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 62:pp.309-320.
①Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., & Jhee, M.. P300 Amplitude and Topography Distinguish between Honest Performance and Feigned Amnesia in An Autobiographical Oddball Task. J. Psychophysiology. 2002,16:pp.1-11.
②Ellwanger, J. W., Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J., et al. Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-related Potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1996, 23:pp.9-23.
③Mertens, R., Allen, J. Culp, N., & Crawford, L.. The Detection of Deception Using Event-related Potentials in A Highly Realistic Mock Crime Scenario. Psychophysiology.2003,40:pp.60.
①杨文俊、陈文明:《识认熟悉者照片时视觉事件相关电位的研究》,《心理学报》1993年第4期,第415-419页。
②廖四照、杨文俊、罗一峰、潘速跃:《房间照片视觉事件相关电位用于测谎的实验研究》,《第一军医大学学报》1996年第4期,第278-281页。
③周亮、杨文俊:《P300用于模拟盗窃测谎的实验性研究》,《中国临床心理学杂志》1999年第1期,第31-33页。
①舒华、程元善、张厚粲:《235个图形的命名一致性、熟悉性、表象一致性和视觉复杂性评定》,《心理学报》1989年第4期,第389-396页。
①Rosenfeld, J. P., Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.2005, 4(1):pp.20-37.
①买晓琴、罗劲、吴建辉、罗跃嘉:《猜谜作业中顿悟的ERP效应》,《心理学报》2005年第1期,第19-25页。
①Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G.. Psychopathy, Threat, and Polygraph Test Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989,74:pp.347–355.
①Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M..Trial by Polygraph: Reconsidering the Use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in Court. Law and Human Behavior.2002, 26:pp.527-541.
②Ekman, P.. Telling Les. New York: Norton,1985.
①Halgren, E., Squires, K. N., Wilson, L.C. et al.. Endogenous Potentials Generated in the Human Hippocampal Formation and Amygdala by Infrequent Events. Science. 1980,210(4471):pp.803-805.
②Okada, C.Y., Kaufman, L., Williamson, J. S.. The Hippocampal Formation as A Source of the Slow Endogenous Potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983, 55:pp.417-426.
③Polich, J. & Kok, A.. Cognitive and Biological Determinants of P300: Anintegrative Review. Biol Psychol. 1995,41:pp.103-146.
①Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clerq, A., Koster, E.H.W.. Autonomic and Behavioral Responding to Concealed Information: Differentiating Orienting and Defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.461-466.
②Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J.. Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Testing: Current Status and Emerging Trends. In I.B. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology(3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 2006:pp.552-588.
①Vincent, A., & Furedy, J. J.. Electrodermal Differentiation of Deception: Potentially Confounding and Influencing Factors. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1992,13:pp. 129–136.
①Wolpe,R.P., Foster,R.K., Langleben, D.D.. Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-detection: Promises and Perils. Am J Bioeth. 2005,5:pp.39-49.
1. [希腊]赫西俄德著:《工作与时日·神谱》,张竹明、蒋平译,商务印书馆1991年版。
2. [美]Stephen M. Miller & Robert V. Huber著:《圣经的历史》,黄剑波译,中央编译出版社2008年版。
3. [俄]尤里·谢尔巴特赫著:《欺诈术与欺诈心理》,徐永平,储诚意译,华文出版社2006年版。
4. [美]查尔斯·福特著:《说谎:你所不知道的一切》,高卓、张葆华、林达译,新华出版社2001年版。
5. [美]希赛拉·鲍克著:《公共生活与私人生活中的道德选择》,张彤华、王立影编译,吉林科学技术出版社1989版。
6. [英]Aldert Vrij著:《说谎心理学》,郑红丽译,中国轻工业出版社2005年版。
7. [台]简资修著:《经济推理与法律》,北京大学出版社2003年第1版。
8.宇传华,《诊断试验的评价(第十三章)》,见余松林主编,《医学统计学(7年制规划教材)》,人民卫生出版社2002年版,第164-178页。
9.罗跃嘉主编:《认知神经科学教程》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
10.高鸿钧:《法律成长的精神向度》,《环球法律评论》2003年冬季号,第434-457页。
11.奚玮、吴小军:《中国古代“五听”制度述评》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第2期,第107-112页。
12.陶春丽、罗非:《“新异刺激”模型和P300》,《生理科学进展》2004年第3期,第265-268页。
13.杨文俊、陈文明:《识认熟悉者照片时视觉事件相关电位的研究》,《心理学报》1993年第4期,第415-419页。
14.廖四照、杨文俊、罗一峰、潘速跃:《房间照片视觉事件相关电位用于测谎的实验研究》,《第一军医大学学报》1996年第4期,第278-281页。
15.周亮、杨文俊:《P300用于模拟盗窃测谎的实验性研究》,《中国临床心理学杂志》1999年第1期,第31-33页。
16.舒华、程元善、张厚粲:《235个图形的命名一致性、熟悉性、表象一致性和视觉复杂性评定》,《心理学报》1989年第4期,第389-396页。
17.买晓琴、罗劲、吴建辉、罗跃嘉:《猜谜作业中顿悟的ERP效应》,《心理学报》2005年第1期,第19-25页。
1. Augustine, A. "On Lying" and "Against Lying".In R. J. Deferrari(ed). Saint Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects. New York: Catholic University of America Press,1952.
2. Barnes, J. A.. A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
3. Sacks, H.. Everyone Has to Lie. In M.Sanches and B. G. Blount(eds.). Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press,1975: pp.57-80.
4. Galasinski, D.. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
5. Habermas, J.. Communication and The Evolution of Society.( T. McCarty Trans). Cambridge: Polity Press,1979.
6. Lewis, M..The Development of Deception. In M.Lewis & C.Saarni(Eds.), Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. The Guilford Press,1993: pp90-105.
7. Nyberg,D.. The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
8. Aitchison,J.. The Language of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
9. Brown,P.. Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka, and C. E. Snow(Eds.). Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002:pp. 241-275.
10. Serban, G.. Lying: Man's Second Nature. Westport, CT: Praeger,2001.
11. Barnes, J.A.. Models and Interpretations: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.
12. Augustine, A..“De Mendacio”.In Opuscules.II. Problèmes moraux. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer et Cie, 1948:pp.244-245.
13. Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life.New York:Pantheon Books,1978.
14. Sweetser, E. E.. The Definition of Lie: An Examination of the Folk Models Underlying a Semantic Prototype. In D. Holland & N. Quinn(Eds.). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987:pp.43-66.
15. Leekman, R.S.. Believing and Deceiving: Steps to Becoming A Good Liar. In S. J. Ceci, M.DeSimone Leichtman & M. Putnick(Eds.). Cognitive and Social Factor in Early Deception. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 1992: pp.47-62.
16. Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Press, 1998.
17. Larson, J.A.. Lying and its Detection. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1932.
18. Matte, J. A.. Forensic Psychophysiology: Using the Polygraph. New York: JAM Publications, 1996.
19. Bull, R.. What is the Lie-Detection Test? In A. Gale (Ed.), The Polygraph Test: Lies, Truth and Science. London: Sage,1988: pp.11-12.
20. Kleiner, M.. Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
21. National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
22. Cesare Lombroso. L’Homme Criminal.Paris:Felix Alcan,1895.
23. Marston, W.M.. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: New York,1938.
24. Sullivan, E.. The Concise Book of Lying. New York: Picador, 2001.
25. Abrams, S.. The Complete Polygraph Handbook. Lexington Books, 1989.
26. Inbau,F.. Lie Detection and Criminal Interrogation(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams 8s Wilkins, 1948.
27. Raskin, D.C.. Polygraph Techniques for the Detection of Deception. In D.C. Raskin (Ed.). Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence.New York: Springer-Verlag,1989.
28. Ben-Shakhar, G.. A Critical Review of the Control Question Test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.),Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.103-126.
29. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientificevidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2).St. Paul, MN: West Law,2002:pp. 483-538.
30. Lykken, D. T.. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Trade, 1998.
31. Nakayama, M.. Practical Use of the Concealed Information Test for Criminal Investigation in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,2002:pp.49-86.
32. Ben-Shakhar, G..Future Prospects of Psychophysiological Detection:Replacing the CQT by the GKT, In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, Vol. 4.Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.,1991:pp.283-289.
33. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E.. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph(“Lie Detector”) Technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins,1977.
34. Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P. & Jayne, B.C.. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions(4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers,2001.
35. O’Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S.. Honest and Integrity Testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources,1989.
36. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C.. The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques:The Case for Polygraph Tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Saunders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing,1997:pp.565-582.
37. Lasagna, Louis & Shulman, Sheila R.. Bendectin and the Language of Causation. In Foster, Kenneth R. & Bernstein, David E. & Huber, Peter W. (Eds.), Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1993.
38. Daniels, C.W.. Legal Aspects of Polygraph Admissibility in the United States. In Handbook of Polygraph Testing (ed. M. Kleiner). San Diego: Academic Press, 2002.
39. Carroll, J.. Toward a Structural Psychology of Cinema.New York: Mouton,1980.
40. Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M.. Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005.
41. American Polygraph Association. Polygraph: Issues and answers. Severna Park, MD: American Polygraph Association, 1996.
42. Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J.. What Psychologists should Know about Lie Detection. In AK Hess & IB Weiner (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1987.
43. Messick, S.. Validity. In Linn, R. (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: Macmillan,1989:pp.13-103.
44. Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T.. The Scientific Status of Research onPolygraph Techniques: The Case against Polygraph Tests. In D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J.Saks, & J.Sanders(Eds.). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing ,1997:pp. 446-483.
45. Davis, R. C.. Physiological Responses as A Means of Evaluating Information. In A.Biderman, & H. Zimmer (Eds.). Manipulation of Human Behavior.New York: Wiley, 1961:pp.142-168.
46. Raskin, D. C.. Orienting and Defensive Reflexes in the Detection of Deception. In H. D. Kimmel, I. H. Van Olst, & J. F. Orlebeke (Eds.). The Orienting Reflex in Humans. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980:pp.587-605.
47. Honts, C.R., & Amato, S.L.. Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.).Handbook of Polygraph Testing. London: Academic Press, 2002: pp.151-264.
48. Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R.. Cognitive Neurosience: the Biology of the Brain (2nd ed.). New York: W. W.Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.
49. Glees,P.. The Human Brain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1988.
50. Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Endogenous Event Related Potentials. In T.W. Picton (Ed.), Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3): Human Event Related Potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier,1988:pp.361-426.
51. Tueting, P.. Event-related Potentials, Cognitive Events, and Information Processing. In D. A. Otto(Ed.). Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-Related Brain Potential Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978:pp.159-69.
52. Donchin E, Karis D, Bashore R.T. et al.. Cognitivepsychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications. In Coles,MGH, Donchin, E., Porges, S.(Eds.). Psychophysiology: Systems,Processes, and Applications. New York: The Guilford Press,1986:p.244-267.
53. Wolpe, P. R.. Neuroethics. In S. G. Post(ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
54. Ekman, P.. Telling Les. New York: Norton,1985.
55. Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J.. Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Testing: Current Status and Emerging Trends. In I.B. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology(3rd ed.). New York: Wiley,2006: pp.552-588.
56. DePaulo, M. B., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol,S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A.. Lying in Everyday Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996,(70):pp.979-995.
57. Buller, D. B. and Burgoon, J. K.. Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory. 1996, 6: pp.203-242.
58. Prater, T. & Kiser, S.B.. Lies, Lies, and More Lies. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 2002,2(67) : pp.9-36.
59. Anderson, N.H.. Likeableness Ratings of 555 Personality-Trait Words. The Journal of Social Psychology.1968,9:272-279.
60. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading. Mind & Language.2002,17:pp.3-23.
61. Stott, F. M.. Special Feature: Why Young Children Lie. Early Childhood Today. 2005,5(19):pp.8-9.
62. Talwar, V. & Lee, K.. Development of Lying to Conceal a Transgression: Children's Control of Expressive Behavior during Verbal Deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002,5(26): pp.436-444.
63. Flavell, J. H.. Cognitive Development: Children’s Knowledge about the Mind. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999,(50):pp.21-45.
64. Premack, D. & Woodruff, G.. Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.1978,4:pp.515-526.
65. Wimmer, H. & Perner, J.. Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Function of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children’s Understanding of Deception. Cognition.1983,13:pp.103-128.
66. Povinelli, D. J. & Giambrone, S.. Reasoning about Beliefs : A Human Specialization. Developmental Psychology. 2001,3(72):pp.691-695.
67. Sodian,B., Taylor,C., & Perner.J.. Early Deception and The Child's Theory of Mind: False Trails and Genuine Markers. Child Development. 1991,(62): pp.468—483.
68. Perner,J., Leekam, S. R. & Wimmer, H.. Three-year Olds' Difficulty with False Belief: The Case for A Conceptual Deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.1987,5:pp.125-137.
69. Hala, S., Chandler, M.& Fritz, S. A.. Fledglingtebories of Mind: Deception as A Marker of 3-year-olds’Understanding of False Belief. Child Development.1991,(61):pp.83-97.
70. Coleman, L. & Kay, P.. Prototypes Semantics: The English word Lie.Language.1981,1(57): pp.26-45.
71. Masip, J., Garrido, E. & Herrero, G.. Defining Deception. Anales de Psicologia. 2004, 1(20): pp.147-171.
72. Hyman, R.. The Psychology of Deception. Annual Review of Psychology. 1989, (40):pp.133-154.
73. Chisholm, M.R. & Feehan, T.D.. The Intent to Deceive. Journal of Philosophy. 1977,(74):pp.143-159.
74. Chandler,M., Fritz, S.A. & Hala, S.. Small Scale Deceit: Deception as A Marker of Two-, Three-, and Four-year-olds’Early Theories of Mind. Child Development. 1989, 6(60):pp.1263-1277.
75. Carson, T.L.. The Definition of Lying. Nous.2006,2(40),pp:284-306.
76. DePaulo, B. M. & Kashy, D. A.. Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998, (74):pp.63-79.
77. McCornack, S. & Levine, T.. When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. Communication Monographs.1990,3(57):pp.219-230.
78. Trovillo, P.Y.. A History of Lie Detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.1939, 29(6):pp.848-881.
79. Krapohl, D. & Sturm, S.. Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph. 2002,31(3): pp. 154-239.
80. Palmiotto, M. J.. Historical Review of Lie-Detection Methods Used in Detecting Criminal Acts. Canadian Police College Journal.1983, 3(7): pp.206-216.
81. Grubin,D. & Madsen,L.. Lie Detection and the Polygraph: A Historical Review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 2005,2(16): pp.357-369.
82. Marston, W.M.. Systolic Blood Pressure Symptoms of Deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1917, 2(2):pp.117-163.
83. Summers, W.G.. Science Can Get the Confession. Fordham Law Review. 1939, 8:pp.335-354.
84. Reid, J.E.. A Revised Questioning Technique in Lie Detection Tests. J. Crim. Law Criminol.1947, 37:pp.542-547.
85. Backster, C.. Methods of Strengthening our Polygraph Technique. Police. 1962, 6(5):pp.61-68.
86. Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C.. A Field Study of the Validity of the Directed lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration.1988, 16:pp.56-61.
87. Lykken, D. T.. Psychology and the Lie Detection Industry. American Psychologist.1974,29:pp. 725-739.
88. Fukumoto, J.. A Case in Which the Polygraph was the Sole Evidence for Conviction. Polygraph.1980 9:pp.42-44.
89. Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Cohen, A.. Behavioral and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Concealed Information. Journal of Applied Psychology.2005,90:pp.147-158.
90. Weaver, R. S.. Effects of Differing Numerical Chart Evaluation Systems on Polygraph Examination Results. Polygraph. 1985,14: pp.34 -41.
91. Backster, C.. Outside "Super-Dampening" Factor. Military Police Journal.1964,Jan:pp.20-21.
92. Capps, M. H., Hnill, B. L. & Evans, R. K.. Effectiveness of the Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.1993,22(4):pp.285-298.
93. Backster, C.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan“Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions.”Polygraph.2001a,30(3):pp.213-215.
94. Krapohl, D.J., & Ryan, A.H.. A Belated Look at Symptomatic Questions. Polygraph.2001,30(3): pp.206-212.
95. Matte, J.A.. Comments on Krapohl & Ryan Criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans Research. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.216-217.
96. Krapohl, D.J.. A Brief Rejoinder to Matte & Grove Regarding“Psychological Set”. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.203-205.
97. Matte, J.A., & Grove, R.N.. Psychological Set: Its Origin, Theory and Application. Polygraph.2001, 30(3):pp.196-202.
98. Verfaellie, M., Bauer, R. M., & Bowers, D.. Autonomic and Behavioral Evidence of“Implicit”Memory in Amnesia. Brain and Cognition. 1991,15: pp.10-25.
99. Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E.. Single versus Multiple Probe Blocks of P300-based Concealed Information Information Tests for Autobiographical versus Incidentally Obtained Information. Biological Psychology.2007,74(3):pp.396-404.
100. Lykken, D.T.. The GSR in the Detection of Guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology.1959,43:pp.385-388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2): pp.123-128.
101. MacLaren, V.. A Qualitative Review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001,86(4):pp.674-683.
102. Podlesny, J.A..Is the Guilty Knowledge Polygraph Technique Applicable in Criminal Investigations?: A Review of FBI Case Records. Crime Laboratory Digest.1993,20(3):pp.57-61.
103. Barland, G.H., Honts, C.R., & Barger, S.D.. The Validity of Detection of Deception for Multiple Issues. Psychophysiology.1989,26(4a Supplement): pp.13.
104. Honts, C.R.. Criterion Development and Validity of the CQT in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology.1996,123(4):pp.309-324.
105. Horvath, F.S.. The Polygraph Silent Answer Test. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science.1972,63(2):pp.285-293.
106. Howland, D.P.. Positive Control Question Technique Pre-test Interview and Chart Interpretation. Polygraph.1981,10(1):pp.37-41.
107. Horvath, F.. Polygraphic Screening of Candidates for Police Work in Large Police Agencies in the United States: A Survey of Practices, Policies, and Evaluative Comments. American Journal of Police.1993, 12(4):pp.67-86.
108. Lykken, D.T.. Polygraphic Interrogation. Nature.1984,387: pp.681 -684.
109. Wigmore, J. H.. Professor Münsterberg and the Psychology of Testimony: Being a Report of the Case of Cokestone v. Münsterberg. Illinois Law Review.1909,3:pp.399-445.
110. Bernstein, E. David. Junk Science In The United States And The Commonwealth. 21 Yale J. Int’l L..1996,123:pp.124.
111. Jonakait, N. Randolph. Scientific Evidence After the Death of Frye Criminal Forensics and DNA Evidence: The Meaning of Daubert what that Means for Forensic Science. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1994, 2103:pp.2103.
112. Sanders, Joseph. Scientific Validity, Admissibility, and Mass Torts After Daubert.78 Minn. L. Rev.1994,1387:pp.1388-1389.
113. Masip, Jaume. Eugenio Garrido and Carmen Herrero. The Nonverbal Approach to the Detetion of Deception: Judgemental Accuracy. Psychology in Spain, 2004, 8(1):pp.48-59.
114. Gustafson, L. A., & Orne, M. T.. Effects of Heightened Motivation on the Detection of Deception. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1963,47: pp.108-411.
115. Podlesny, J.A., & Raskin, D.C.. Effectiveness of Techniques and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception. Psychophysiology. 1978,15:pp.344-358.
116. Raskin, D.C., & Hare, R.D.. Psychopathy and Detection of Deception in A Prison Population. Psychophysiology.1978,15:pp.126-136.
117. Ben-Shakhar, G.. Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information. Psychophysiology.1977,14:pp.408-413.
118. Ben-Shakhar, G. & Dolev, K.. Psychophysiological Detection through the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Mental Countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81:pp.273 -281.
119. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C.. Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994, 79:pp.252-259.
120. Krapohl, D.J.. A Taxonomy of Polygraph Countermeasures. Polygraph.1996, 25(1):pp.35-56.
121. Rosenfeld, P. J., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. & Ryan, A.. Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information. Psychophysiology. 2004,41:pp.205-219.
122. Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L.. Using Response Time Measures to Assess“Guilty Knowledge”. Journal of Applied Psychology.2000,85:pp.30-37.
123. Rosenfeld P.J., Cantwell, B., Nasman, T.V., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., Mazzeri, L.. A Modified, Event-related Potential-based Guilty Knowledge Test. Int J Neurosci, 1988, 42:pp.157-161.
124. Spence, A.S., Hunter, D.M., Farrow, F.T., Green, D.R., Leung, H.D., Hughes,J. C., Ganesan, V..A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.2004,359:pp.1755-1762.
125. Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A.,et al.. Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study. NeuroImage. 2002,15:pp.727-732.
126. Langleben, D. D., Loughead, W. J., Bilker, B.W.,et al..Telling Truth From Lie in Individual Subjects With Fast Event-Related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping.2005,26:pp.262-272.
127. Nunez, M.J., Casey,J.B., Egner, T. et al.. Intentional False Responding Shares Neural Substrates with Response Conflict and Cognitive Control. Neuroimage,2005,25:pp.267-277.
128. Zarahn, E., Rakitin, B., Abela, D. et al.. Positive Evidence against Human Hippocampal Involvement in Working Memory Maintenance of Familiar Stimuli. Cereb Cortex.2005, 15:pp.303-316.
129. Spence,A. S., Farrow,F.T., Herford,E.A. et al.. Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans. Neuroreport. 2001,12:pp.2849-2853.
130. Lee, M.T., Liu, L.H., Tan,H.L. et al.. Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Hum Brain Mapp.2002, 15:pp.157-164.
131. Ganis, G., Kosslyn,M.S., Stose, S. et al..Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb Cortex. 2003,13: pp.830-836.
132. Mohamed, B.F., Faro,H.S., Gordon,J.N. et al.. Brain Mapping of Deception and Truth Telling about An Ecologically Valid Situation: An fMRI and Polygraph Investigation-initial Experience. Radiology.2006, 238:pp.679 -688.
133. Rosenfeld, J.P., Nasman, T. V., Whalen, R. et al.. Late Vertex Positivity as A Guilty Knowledge Indicator: A New Method of Lie Detection. Int. J. Neurosc.1987, 34:pp.125-129.
134. Farwell, A.L. & Donchin, E. The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event Related Potentials. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.531-547.
135. Rosenfeld, J.P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., & Qian, J. An ERP-based Control Question Lie Detector Analog: Algorithms for Discriminating Effects within Individual Waveforms. Psychophysiology.1991, 28:pp.320-336.
136. Johnson, M.M. & Rosenfeld, J.P. A New ERP-based Deception Detector Analog II: Utilization of Non-selective Activation of Relevant Knowledge. Int. J. Psychophysiology.1992, 12:pp.289-306.
137. Allen, J. J., & Iacono, W. G.. A Comparison of Methods for the Analysis of Event-related Potentials in Deception Detection. Psychophysiology. 1997,34:pp.234-240.
138. Allen, J. J., Iacono, W. G., & Danielson, K. D.. The Developmentand Validation of An Event-related Potential Memory Assessment Procedure: A Methodology for Prediction in the Face of Individual Differences. Psychophysiology. 1992,29:pp.504-522.
139. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R.. Evoked Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science. 1965, 150:pp.1187 -1188.
140. Picton, T.W. & Hillyard, S.W.. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. II. Effects of Attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1974,36: pp.191-199.
141. Fang Fang,Liu Yitao & Shen Zheng.Lie Detection with Contingent Negative Variation. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2003,3(50): pp.247-255.
142. Farwell, L. A., & Smith, S. S.. Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2001,46(1):pp.135-143.
143. Courchesne, E., Hillyard S.A., Galambos, R.. Stimulus Novelty, Task Relevance and the Visual Evoked Potential in Man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.1975, 39:pp.131-143.
144. Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E.. Augmenting Mental Chronometry: The P300 as A Measure of Stimulus Evaluation Time. Science. 1977, 197:pp.792-795.
145. Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., John, E.R.. Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential. Science.1967, 155(768): pp.436 -439.
146. MacLaren, V. V. & Taukulis, H. K.. Forensic Identification Using Event-related Potentials. Polygraph. 2000,29(4):pp.330-343.
147. McCarthy,G., Donchin, E.. A Metric for Thought: A Comparison of P300 Latency and Reaction Time. Science. 1981,211:pp.77-80.
148. Polich, J.. Task Difficulty, Probability, and Inter-stimulus Interval as Determinants of P300 from Auditory Stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987,68:pp.311-20.
149. Snyder, E., Hillyard, S.A. & Galambos, R.. Similarities and Differences among the P3 Waves to Detected Signals in Three Modalities. Psychophysiology.1980, 17:pp.112-122.
150. Polich,J.. Bifurcated P300 Peaks:P3a and P3b Revisited. Clin Neurophysiol. 1988,5:pp.287-294.
151. Karis, D., Fabiani, M. & Donchin, E.. P300 and Recall in An Incidental Memory Paradigm. Psychophysiology.1986,23:pp.298-308.
152. Farah, M. J.. Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience.Nature Neuroscience. 2002,5:pp.1123 -1129.
153. Foster, K. R., Wolpe, P. R. and Caplan, A.. Bioethics and the Brain. IEEE Spectrum.2003, June: pp.34-39
154. Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R. A. et al.. Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research. Neurology.2004, 62(6):pp.888-890.
155. Wolpe, P. R.. Treatment, Enhancement, and the Ethics of Neurotherapeutics. Brain and Cognition. 2002,50:pp.387-395.
156. Ford E. B., Lie Detection: Historical, Neuropsychiatric and Legal Dimensions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.2006, 29(3):pp.159-177.
157. Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Furedy, J.J.. P300-based Detection of Concealed Autobiographical versus Incidentally Acquired Information in Target and Non-target Paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 60:pp.251-259.
158. Abootalebi, V., Moradi, M. H., Khalilzadeh, M. A.. A Comparison of Methods for ERP Assessment in A P300-based GKT. International Journal of Psychophysiology.2006, 62:pp.309-320.
159. Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., & Jhee, M.. P300 Amplitude and Topography Distinguish between Honest Performance and Feigned Amnesia in An Autobiographical Oddball Task. J. Psychophysiology. 2002,16: pp.1-11.
160. Ellwanger, J. W., Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J., et al. Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-related Potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1996, 23:pp.9-23.
161. Mertens, R., Allen, J. Culp, N., & Crawford, L.. The Detection of Deception Using Event-related Potentials in A Highly Realistic Mock Crime Scenario. Psychophysiology.2003,40:pp.60.
162. Rosenfeld, J. P., Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.2005, 4(1):pp.20-37.
163. Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G.. Psychopathy, Threat, and Polygraph Test Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989,74:pp.347-355.
164. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M..Trial by Polygraph: Reconsidering the Use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in Court. Law and Human Behavior.2002, 26:pp.527-541.
165. Halgren, E., Squires, K. N., Wilson, L.C. et al.. Endogenous Potentials Generated in the Human Hippocampal Formation and Amygdala by Infrequent Events. Science. 1980,210(4471):pp.803-805.
166. Okada, C.Y., Kaufman, L., Williamson, J. S.. The Hippocampal Formation as A Source of the Slow Endogenous Potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983, 55:pp.417-426.
167. Polich, J. & Kok, A.. Cognitive and Biological Determinants of P300: Anintegrative Review. Biol Psychol. 1995,41:pp.103-146.
168. Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clerq, A., Koster, E.H.W.. Autonomic and Behavioral Responding to Concealed Information: Differentiating Orienting and Defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 2004,41: pp.461-466.
169. Vincent, A., & Furedy, J. J.. Electrodermal Differentiation of Deception: Potentially Confounding and Influencing Factors. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 1992,13:pp. 129-136.
170. Wolpe,R.P., Foster,R.K., Langleben, D.D.. Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-detection: Promises and Perils. Am J Bioeth. 2005,5:pp.39-49.
171. Josephson,M.. 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. Los Angeles,CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.1998.
172. Keeler, L.. Problems in the Use of the "Lie Detector". Police Year Book 1938-1939. Washington, DC: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1939:pp.136-142.
173. McCloud, D.G.. A Survey of Polygraph Utilization. Law and Order.1991.
174. Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., & Gordon, A.. Validity of Outside-Issue Questions in the Control Question Test. Final Report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no.N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666,2000.
175. Ohkawa, Hisatsugi.Comparison of Physiological Response of "Yes", "No", and "Mute" Conditions in Peak of Tension Test. Reports of the National Institute of Police Science,1963.
176. Ansley, N. and Garwood, M.. The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph Testing. US Department of Defense Report. Washington, DC, 1984.
177. Frye v. United States., 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923).
178. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F. Supp.570(S.D. Cal.1989).
179. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 F.2d 1128(9th Cir.1991).
180. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998).
181. Mallory v. United States,354 U.S. 449,450,451(1957).
182. United States v. Piccinonna 885 F2d 1529 (1989).
183. Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637 (U.S. App, D.C., 1962).
184. Gold, J. Victor. Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. Nebraska Law Review,1987.
185. Citro, A. Vincent. Playing"pin the tail on the truth"in the Eleventh Circuit: why polygraph evidence should be excluded in Federal courts. 30 Stetson L.Rev.2000(Fall):pp.725.
186. Office of Technology Assessment. Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation-A Technical Memorandum. Rep. TM-H-15. Washington, DC: U.S.Congress: Office of Technology Assessment,1983.
187. United States v. Harrington,410 F.3d 598(2000).
188. Lawrence A. Farwell, Supplement to Forensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington. Nov. 10, 2000:pp.32.