Efficiency of GSR Detection of Information as a Function of Stimulus Set Size

Lieblich, Israel; Kugelmass, Sol; Ben‐Shakhar, Gershox

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1970.tb02249.x

Cited by 76 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Physiological response differences between item types depend on the ratio of probe to irrelevant items presented (e.g. Lieblich et al, 1970). Therefore, all effect sizes and ROC areas reported here may have been attenuated relative to most other studies.…”

Section: Effects Of Information Concealment On Behavioral and Physiolcontrasting

confidence: 60%

An interfering n-back task facilitates the detection of concealed information with EDA but impedes it with cardiopulmonary physiology

Ambach

Stark

Vaitl

2011

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effects Of Information Concealment On Behavioral and Physiolcontrasting

confidence: 60%

An interfering n-back task facilitates the detection of concealed information with EDA but impedes it with cardiopulmonary physiology

Ambach

Stark

Vaitl

2011

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It should be noted that, unlike previous investigators (Ben-Shakhar, 1977;Ben-Shakhar et al, 1975;Ben-Shakhar, Lieblich, & Kugelmass, 1982;Lieblich et al, 1970), we did not find that the stimulus probability factor had an influence on the relative validities of the two models. It should be emphasized, however, that, unlike the previous studies, which attached relevance to some of the stimuli, the present stimuli were all neutral.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, Model 2, which assumes independent habituation processes to the different stimuli of the complex sequence, describes better the data in a situation in which the psychological distance between the stimuli is relatively large. This result is in line with the concept of dichotomization suggested previously by the authors (Ben-Shakhar, 1977;Ben-Shakhar et al, 1975;Lieblich, Kugelmass, & Ben-Shakhar, 1970). It is logical to suggest that, in a complex sequence in which the different stimuli are for some reason indiscriminable, the sequence will be processed as a single category.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Similarity of auditory stimuli and generalization of skin conductance response habituation

Ben‐Shakhar

Lieblich

1982

Psychobiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two alternative models for orienting response habituation to complex sequences of stimuli were formulated. Model 1 assumed complete generalization of habituation, while Model 2 assumed independent habituation processes for the different stimuli making up the complex sequence. Two experiments were conducted in order to compare the models. Experiment 1 was conducted to obtain a simple habituation function to tones. Experiment 2 utilized complex sequences, each comprising two tones. The degree of similarity between these two tones was manipulated by systematically varying the frequency of one of these tones, using a betweensubjects design. The predictions of the two models were correlated with the SCRs of each subject. The results showed that the validities of the models depend on the similarity between the stimuli making up the complex sequence. For a sequence comprising very similar stimuli, Model 1 is a better description of the habituation process. Model 2, however, yields a closer fit to the habituation process to sequences comprising clearly discriminable stimuli.The nature of orienting response (OR) habituation to complex sequences of stimuli is of theoretical importance for the understanding of neuronal models. Several studies have tried to clarify the habituation pattern in such sequences (e.g., Furedy, 1968;Zimny, Pawlick, & Saur, 1969). Frith (1978a, 1978b) have raised the possibility that different laws may govern the habituation process in complex and simple sequences of stimuli. These authors have suggested that the neuronal model operates within a range of specific limits. It follows that if the stimuli making up the complex sequence vary within these limits, the habituation pattern should not differ from that of habituation to a simple sequence. Only when the stimuli set includes a stimulus that falls outside these limits should we expect habituation pattern to the complex sequence that is different from that of habituation to a simple sequence.Ben-Shakhar (1980) has also dealt with habituation processes to complex sequences, and has tried to formulate, by means of simple mathematical models, the relationship between habituation in complex and simple sequences. Two main models have been formulated: Modell, which assumes complete generalization of habituation, states that the response in a given trial of a complex sequence is a function of all the previous stimuli in that sequence. In more formal terms, Modell states: g(i/j) =f(i + j), where f denotesThe present study was supported by a grant from the Eshkol Institute, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We wish to thank Ms. Judy Lustig and Ms. Aya Poznanski for their assistance.the habituation function in a simple sequence, g denotes the habituation function in a complex sequence of stimuli, i and j denote the trial numbers of two stimuli, and g(ilj) denotes the response to a stimulus in its [th presentation, given that the other stimuli have appeared j times before it. Model 2 assumes that the response to a given stim...

show abstract

“…At the same time, more trials may lead to adaptation or habituation (Thompson, 2009) and may provide participants with more opportunities to practice their responses (De Paulo et al, 2003;Walczyk et al, 2014) or even to exert countermeasures (i.e., strategies that participants use to appear truthful; see e.g., Ben Shakhar, 2011). Previous findings regarding the effect of practice on the RT deception effect are inconclusive (Johnson, Barnhardt, & Zhu, 2005;Vendemia, Buzan, & Green, 2005 (Ben-Shakhar, 1977;Ben-Shakhar, Lieblich, & Kugelmass, 1982;Hu, Hegeman, Landry, & Rosenfeld, 2012;Lieblich, Kugelmass, & Ben-Shakhar, 1970).…”

Section: Moderator Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Suchotzki¹,

Verschuere²,

Bockstaele³

et al. 2017

Psychological Bulletin

219

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lie detection techniques are frequently used, but most of them have been criticized for the lack of empirical support for their predictive validity and presumed underlying mechanisms. This situation has led to increased efforts to unravel the cognitive mechanisms underlying deception and to develop a comprehensive theory of deception. A cognitive approach to deception has reinvigorated interest in reaction time (RT) measures to differentiate lies from truths and to investigate whether lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling. Here, we provide the results of a meta-analysis of 114 studies (n = 3307) using computerized RT paradigms to assess the cognitive cost of lying. Results revealed a large standardized RT difference, even after correction for publication bias (d = 1.049; 95% CI [0.930; 1.169]), with a large heterogeneity amongst effect sizes. Moderator analyses revealed that the RT deception effect was smaller, yet still large, in studies in which participants received instructions to avoid detection. The autobiographical Implicit Association Test produced smaller effects than the Concealed Information Test, the Sheffield Lie Test, and the Differentiation of Deception paradigm. An additional meta-analysis (17 studies, n = 348) showed that, like other deception measures, RT deception measures are susceptible to countermeasures. Whereas our meta-analysis corroborates current cognitive approaches to deception, the observed heterogeneity calls for further research on the boundary conditions of the cognitive cost of deception. RT-based measures of deception may have potential in applied settings, but countermeasures remain an important challenge. LYING TAKES TIME 3

show abstract

Efficiency of GSR Detection of Information as a Function of Stimulus Set Size

Cited by 76 publications

References 7 publications

An interfering n-back task facilitates the detection of concealed information with EDA but impedes it with cardiopulmonary physiology

An interfering n-back task facilitates the detection of concealed information with EDA but impedes it with cardiopulmonary physiology

Similarity of auditory stimuli and generalization of skin conductance response habituation

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About