Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2013 Sep;94(1):1-11.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.012. Epub 2013 May 7.

Intentional retrieval suppression can conceal guilty knowledge in ERP memory detection tests

Zara M Bergström  1 , Michael C Anderson, Marie Buda, Jon S Simons, Alan Richardson-Klavehn
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Intentional retrieval suppression can conceal guilty knowledge in ERP memory detection tests

Zara M Bergström et al. Biol Psychol. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Brain-activity markers of guilty knowledge have been promoted as accurate and reliable measures for establishing criminal culpability. Tests based on these markers interpret the presence or absence of memory-related neural activity as diagnostic of whether or not incriminating information is stored in a suspect's brain. This conclusion critically relies on the untested assumption that reminders of a crime uncontrollably elicit memory-related brain activity. However, recent research indicates that, in some circumstances, humans can control whether they remember a previous experience by intentionally suppressing retrieval. We examined whether people could use retrieval suppression to conceal neural evidence of incriminating memories as indexed by Event-Related Potentials (ERPs). When people were motivated to suppress crime retrieval, their memory-related ERP effects were significantly decreased, allowing guilty individuals to evade detection. Our findings indicate that brain measures of guilty knowledge may be under criminals' intentional control and place limits on their use in legal settings.

Keywords: Cognitive control; Episodic retrieval; Event-Related Potentials; Guilty knowledge; Memory suppression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Group average mid-parietal ERPs and scalp maps contrasting different item types within blocks in Experiment one (left column) and Experiment two (right column). Topographic maps show the mean difference between probes and irrelevants between 450 and 800 ms.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Group average mid-parietal ERPs contrasting the same item types across blocks in Experiment one (left column) and Experiment two (right column).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Percentage of participants classified as guilty using different statistics for the bootstrap test at different guilt classification thresholds.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allen J.J., Iacono W.G., Danielson K.D. The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioral measures: A methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. Psychophysiology. 1992;29:504–522. - PubMed
    1. Allen J.J.B., Mertens R. Limitations to the detection of deception: True and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event-related potential procedure. Social Neuroscience. 2009;4:473–490. - PubMed
    1. Anderson M.C., Ochsner K.N., Kuhl B., Cooper J., Robertson E., Gabrieli S.W. Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science. 2004;303:232–235. - PubMed
    1. Anderson M.C., Green C. Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature. 2001;410:366–369. - PubMed
    1. Anderson M.C., Huddleston E. Towards a cognitive and neurobiological model of motivated forgetting. In: Belli R.F., editor. True and false recovered memories: Toward a reconciliation of the debate. Vol. 58. Springer; New York: 2011. pp. 53–120. (Nebraska symposium on motivation). - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources