Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence

PDF

University of Georgia School of Law

ERP

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Applications Of Neuroscience In Criminal Law: Legal And Methodological Issues, John B. Meixner Jr. Jan 2015

Applications Of Neuroscience In Criminal Law: Legal And Methodological Issues, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

The use of neuroscience in criminal law applications is an increasingly discussed topic among legal and psychological scholars. Over the past 5 years, several prominent federal criminal cases have referenced neuroscience studies and made admissibility determinations regarding neuroscience evidence. Despite this growth, the field is exceptionally young, and no one knows for sure how significant of a contribution neuroscience will make to criminal law. This article focuses on three major subfields: (1) neuroscience-based credibility assessment, which seeks to detect lies or knowledge associated with a crime; (2) application of neuroscience to aid in assessments of brain capacity for culpability, especially …


A Novel Countermeasure Against The Reaction Time Index Of Countermeasure Use In The P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol For Detection Of Concealed Information, Alexander Sokolovsky, Jessica Rothenberg, Elena Labkovsky, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld Jan 2011

A Novel Countermeasure Against The Reaction Time Index Of Countermeasure Use In The P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol For Detection Of Concealed Information, Alexander Sokolovsky, Jessica Rothenberg, Elena Labkovsky, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld

Scholarly Works

A P300 deception detection protocol was tested using simultaneous versus serial countermeasures and stimulus acknowledgment responses. Previously, P300 showed recognition and elevated reaction time identified countermeasure use. Probe-irrelevant P300 differences were significant in both countermeasure groups and control group. Detection rates were 11/12 for controls, 10/12 for serial countermeasure users, and 11/13 for simultaneous countermeasure users. Reaction time detected countermeasure use in serial responders, but not simultaneous responders. The simultaneous response reaction times were indistinguishable from controls.