MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140316171 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2013.2244884

A New Method for EEG-Based Concealed Information Test

2013· article· en· W2140316171 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Test (biology)Data miningMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forensic electroencephalogram (EEG)-based lie detection has recently begun using the concealed information test (CIT) as a potentially more robust alternative to the classical comparative questions test. The main problem with using CIT is that it requires an objective and fast decision algorithm under the constraint of limited available information. In this study, we developed a simple and feasible hierarchical knowledge base construction and test method for efficient concealed information detection based on objective EEG measures. We describe how a hierarchical feature space was formed and which level of the feature space was sufficient to accurately predict concealed information from the raw EEG signal in a short time. A total of 11 subjects went through an autobiographical paradigm test. A high accuracy of 95.23% in recognizing concealed information with a single EEG electrode within about 20 seconds demonstrates effectiveness of the method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it