Superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in a P300-based CIT: The Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection

This paper continues our efforts to determine which modality is best for presentation of stimuli in the P300-based concealed information test (CIT) called the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The first part of the CTP trial involves presentation of the key probe or irrelevant stimuli, and is followed by presentation of target (T) or non-target (NT). In Rosenfeld et al. (2015), probes and irrelevants regularly alternated modality over trials, but Ts and NTs were always visual. In the present study, (in both its experiments, EXP 1 and EXP 2), probes and irrelevants alternated modalities on successive trials, as before. In present EXP 1, Ts and NTs were always auditory, but in EXP 2, they were simultaneously auditory and visual. Probe P300 data were different in each study: In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) and EXP 2 here, the bootstrap-based detection rates based on probe-minus-irrelevant differences, significantly differed favoring visual probe and irrelevant presentation modality. In EXP 1 here, detection rates were the same for the two modalities. In Rosenfeld et al. (2015) there was no main effect of probe modality, visual vs. auditory on probe-minus-irrelevant P300 difference. There were such effects here in EXP 1 (p < 0.08, effect size = 0.19) and EXP 2 (p < 0.02, effect size = 0.31), favoring the visual modality. Probe P300 latencies were shorter for visual than for auditory stimuli in Rosenfeld et al. (2015), a trend specifically reversed in the present pair of studies. RT was faster for visual stimuli in the present studies. The T and NT modality appears to interact with probe/irrelevant modality, and the best protocol for detecting concealed information is with the 2015 study protocol or that of EXP 2, using visual stimulus presentation. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.