Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 2

  • 1978 Accesses

Abstract

Memory Detection Tests (MDTs) are a general class of psychophysiological tests that can be used to determine whether someone remembers a particular fact or datum. The P300 MDT is a type of MDT that relies on a presumed correlation between a detectable neural signal (the P300 “brainwave”) in a test subject, and the recognition of those facts in the subject’s mind. The P300 MDT belongs to a class of brain-based forensic technologies which have proved popular and controversial in recent years. With such tests increasingly being proffered for use in the courtroom—to either support or call into question testimony—it would behoove the legal system to have some systematic framework for ensuring that they are used responsibly, and for this framework, in turn, to play a part in future research and development of this technology. In this paper, I defend one such framework for ensuring that this is the case: the legitimacy enhancing test. According to this test, it is appropriate to make use of technologies such as the P300 MDT whenever doing so would (probably) enhance the legitimacy of the trial. I argue that this test addresses tensions between scientific and legal norms of evidence, and exhibits a number of additional virtues including unification, simplicity and flexibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the early rejection of the lie detector test, see Frye v United States (1923) 293 F. 1013. Schauer (2012).

  2. 2.

    I take the name from Meegan (2008). Roughly equivalent terms are “Guilty Knowledge Test” or “Concealed Information Test”, but both of those carry unwelcome pejorative implications (guilt in the first instance and concealment in the second). “Memory Detection” is a more neutral, yet still descriptively appropriate term.

  3. 3.

    Lawrence Farwell famously started the company Brainwave Science in order to push the forensic use of his “brainfingerprinting” version of the P300 MDT. A full analysis of his attempts can be found in Rosenfeld (2005). A response to this can be found in Farwell (2011).

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that, as with DNA-matching, the fact that an accused person can be linked to a crime scene does not equate with their guilt, obviously additional steps are needed for that.

  5. 5.

    For general details, see Farwell’s company webpage at www.governmentworks.com/bws. The unique feature of Farwell’s test is that in addition to recording the P300 response it also focuses on something Farwell calls the MERMER response. The technique is promoted in Farwell et al. (2012) and Farwell (2012).

  6. 6.

    Contributor Patrick in Verscheure et al. (2011) argues that MDTs are an “idea whose time has come” (p. 9), and another contributor to the same volume makes the case for its widespread use by law enforcement (Iacono, pp 12–27).

  7. 7.

    Rosenfeld is developing a version of the P300 MDT that makes use of something he calls the complex trial protocol. This, along with certain other testing techniques, makes the test more accurate and less prone to countermeasures. This is discussed in more detail in Sect. 13.4. A list of his most recent publications can be found at: http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/rosenfeld/publications.html.

  8. 8.

    Farwell published six articles on his technique since 2011, and Rosenfeld published five in 2012 alone. See both authors’ webpages for the relevant papers.

  9. 9.

    Note: since fMRI is simply an imaging-technique, it could potentially be used as the basis for a MDT. This is discussed in Gamer (2011). Nevertheless, this has not been developed to a significant extent yet. The P300 EEG-based technique has been much more fully developed.

  10. 10.

    See Verscheure et al. (2011) on the advantages of the MDT. Note that deception may indirectly feature as part of the test (Rosenfeld 2011).

  11. 11.

    Though, problematically this is all they seem capable of doing. See Danaher (2011b).

  12. 12.

    Schauer (2012) deals with some such criticisms.

  13. 13.

    This is not to say that the normative function of the trial reduces to that of legitimacy, merely that legitimacy is an important part of the normative justification of the trial, whatever its normative function may be.

  14. 14.

    Vedder and Klaming (2010) discuss privacy problems in relation to another possible reform of the legal epistemic system: eyewitness enhancement; I respond to their arguments at length in Danaher (2013).

References

  • Adler, K. 2007. The lie detectors: the history of an American obsession. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, John J.B. 2008. Not devoid of forensic potential, but…. American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, John J.B., and R. Mertens. 2009. Limitations to the detection of deception: true and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event-related potential procedure. Social Neuroscience 4(6): 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Shakar, G. 2002. A critical review of the control questions test. In Handbook of polygraph testing, ed. M. Kleiner. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. 2006. The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116: 656–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, R. 2013. Incommensurability and incomparability. In International encyclopedia of ethics, ed. H. La Follette. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, R. forthcoming. Value pluralism. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, edited by Wright, J.D, 2nd Edn. Elsevier. Preprint available at: http://ruthchang.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/VALUEPLURALISMsubmittedupdateforweb1.pdf (accessed May 29, 2013).

  • Danaher, John. 2011a. Blind expertise and the problem of scientific evidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 15(3): 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danaher, John. 2011b. The future of brain-based lie detection and the admissibility of scientific evidence. Irish Criminal Law Journal 21: 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danaher, John. 2013. On the need for epistemic enhancement: democratic legitimacy and the enhancement project. Law, Innovation and Technology 5(1): 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danaher, John. 2015. The comparative advantages of brain-based lie detection: the P300 CIT and pre-trial bargaining. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 19(1): 52–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, David. 1993. Making truth safe for democracy. In The idea of democracy, ed. D. Copp, J. Hampton and J.E. Roemer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, David. 2003. Why not epistocracy?. In Desire, identity and existence: essays in honour of T.M. Penner, ed. Reshotko, N. Kelowna, B.C.: Academic Printing and Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farwell, Lawrence. 2011. Brain fingerprinting: corrections to rosenfeld. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 8: 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farwell, Lawrence. 2012. Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics 6: 115–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farwell, Lawrence, and E. Donchin. 1991. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event related potentials. Psychophysiology 28: 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farwell, Lawrence, D. Richardson, and G. Richardson. 2012. Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information. Cognitive Neurodynamics. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedy, John. 1996. The north American polygraph and psychophysiology: disinterested, uninterested and interested perspectives. International Journal of Psychophysiology 21: 97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furedy, John, and R. Heselgrave. 1988. The validity of the lie detector: a psychophysiological perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior 15: 219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamer, Matthias. 2011. Detecting of deception and concealed information using neuroimaging techniques. In Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, ed. Verscheure, B., Gershon Ben-Shakar and Ewout Meijer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganis, G.J.P., and J.P. Rosenfeld. 2011. Neural correlates of deception. In The Oxford handbook of neuroethics, ed. J. Illes, and B. Sahakian. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, Gerald. 2003. Contemporary theories of liberalism. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, Gerald. 2010. The order of public reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. 2008. The detection of constructed memories and the risks of undue prejudice. American Journal of Bioethics 8: 23–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, Hank T. and Illes, J. 2007. Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine 377–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliburton, C. 2007. Letting Katz out of the bag: cognitive freedom and fourth amendment fidelity. Hastings Law Journal 59: 309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X., and J.P. Rosenfeld. 2012. Combining the P300-complex trial-based concealed Information Test and the reaction time-based autobiographical implicit association test in concealed memory detection. Psychophysiology 49: 1090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W.G. 2008. Effective policing: understanding how polygraph tests work and are used. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 35: 1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacoco, W.G. 2011. Encouraging the use of the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT): what the GKT has to offer law enforcement. In Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, ed. Verschuere et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iowa (2003) Harrington v. State of Iowa 659 N.W.2d 509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaming, Laura. 2011. Does neuroscientific evidence bias legal decision-making? some preliminary findings. Law, Innovation and Technology 3: 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppl. Roger. 2006. Epistemic systems. Episteme: A journal of social epistemology 2: 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, C., and R. Goodin. 2001. Epistemic democracy: generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9: 277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machin, D. 2009. The irrelevance of democracy to the public justification of political authority. Res Publica 15: 103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, J.L. 2005. The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. In Deliberative democracy and its discontents, ed. Besson and Marti. London: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meegan, D. 2008. Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection. American Journal of Bioethics 8: 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meixner, J., and J.P. Rosenfeld. 2010. Countermeasure mechanisms in a P300-based concealed information test. Psychophysiology 47: 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, R., and J.J.B. Allen. 2008. The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology 45: 286–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of the Sciences Report. 2003. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oklahoma. 2005. Slaughter v. State of Oklahoma 105 P.3d 832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, Fabienne. 2007. Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6(3): 329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, Fabienne. 2008a. Pure epistemic proceduralism. Episteme 5: 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, Fabienne. 2008b. Democratic legitimacy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polich, J. 2007. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology 118(10): 2128–2148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, J. 2005. Brain fingerprinting: a critical analysis. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 4: 20–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, J. Peter. 2011. P300 in detecting concealed information. In Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, ed. Verscheure, B., Gershon Ben-Shakar and Ewout Meijer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, J.Peter, H. Xiaoqing, E. Labkovsky, J. Meixner, and M. Winograd. 2013. Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology 90(2): 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2010. Can bad science be good evidence: neuroscience, lie detection and beyond. Cornell Law Review 95: 1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2012. Lie detection, neuroscience, and the law of evidence. Virginia public law and legal theory research paper 2012–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sententia, Wyre. 2004. Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013: 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sententia, Wyre. 2001. Brain fingerprinting: databodies to databrains. Institute for ethics and emerging technologies, available at http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/1412.

  • Vedder, A., and L. Klaming. 2010. Human enhancement for the common good—using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory. AJOB: Neuroethics 3(1): 22–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verscheure, Bruno, Gershon Ben-Shakar, and Ewout Meijer (eds.). 2011. Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    John Danaher

Authors
  1. John Danaher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Danaher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

  2. Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

  3. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Henny Romijn

  4. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Tsjalling Swierstra

  5. Philosophy Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Danaher, J. (2015). Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial. In: Koops, BJ., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation