the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for recording and analyzing event related potentials ( erp ) and specifically a method of measuring and determining p3 responses from a repeatedly presented stimulus interspersed with non - significant stimuli and analyzing the measured erp responses by means of a computer . the present invention provides a method for analysis and display of quantitative features extracted from event related potentials generated by the brain in response to presented conditions and challenges . while many embodiments of the present invention are known and recognized by those skilled in the art , the present invention is directed at controlled testing methods , i . e ., guilty knowledge detection or control questioning . this emphasis is not intended to be limiting . accordingly , the method of the present invention relates to evoking event related potentials , interpreting and displaying the p300 responses which comprises attaching a series of electrodes to the subject scalp , presenting a specified challenge or condition relating to guilty knowledge or control questioning , recording the electrical brain activity relating to the cognitive processes , extracting significant quantitative features from those data , particularly the amplitude of p300 brain waves , and statistically analyzing the extracted features according to a systematic procedure . p300 brain wave amplitude ranging from 400 to 800 millisecond post - stimulus is determined to be interpretive of a significant response in the controlled testing methods of the present invention , preferably either in guilty knowledge detection or control questioning . with reference to fig1 a subject is seated before a computer terminal with electrodes attached to three scalp sites : the vertex ( cz ), central - parietal ( pz ) and central frontal ( fz ). optionally , earphones are also worn . event related potentials ( erp ) are amplified 60 , 000 times and filtered to exclude activity below 0 . 1 and above 30 hz . eye movement is recorded with electrodes above and below the eyes and processed for disqualifying purposes . eye movements and blinks can produce artifacts which must be removed from the data base . at the conclusion of a recording , average wave forms from cz , pz , and fz and from the eye channel are available . the flatness of the wave forms from the eye channel insures artifact free testing . further , muscular activity from the jaw and forehead surfaces can be measured and utilized as normative criteria for rejection of data contaminated by abnormal muscular activity . this is particularly more important for field applications in which subjects motivated to defeat the test can clench jaws and thereby generate muscular activity signals which would be noise sources for erp data . the following procedures below can be utilized in a guilty knowledge paradigm and / or are adapted to auditory presentation and stimuli in accordance with the schematic representation of fig1 . the procedures are shown in both laboratory setting and a field setting . ______________________________________procedures with subjectslab field______________________________________1 . guilty knowledge induction : ( e . g .) subject chooses an item from criminal steals an item a box . experimenter is not told what item is chosen . subject is asked to pretend he has stolen his chosen item and is taking a lie detector test . 2 . instructions to subject , pre - prime phase : briefly , subject will be subject likewise will be shortly viewing 9 - word set told to watch for an item &# 34 ; p &# 34 ;, which does not include he is suspected of his chosen / stolen item . he recently stealing . the is now told to count the item is not named . he is word &# 34 ; rubies &# 34 ; which will told to look for and appear . he is also told he count one word in the will not be able to help set . it can be arbitrar - noticing when his chosen - ily selected ( as at left ) stolen item appears . in fact , or actually be an item he in phase # 3 , the next ( priming ) has stolen at a different phase , he will see nine words time as determined by presented one at a time every records and / or interroga - 2 seconds . the word &# 34 ; rubies &# 34 ; tion . it is not the item will appear , but the chosen / he is currently suspected stolen item will not appear . of stealing . warnings the aim is to raise expectancy given as at left , about and anticipation . warnings paying attention . about failing to pay attention are given . subject is warned that he must have a reasonably accurate count of counted item or we &# 39 ; ll know of inattention . he &# 39 ; s also told he will not be able to help noticing chosen item when it is given . 3 . prime phase subject views words from set similarly &# 34 ; p &# 34 ;. these are all different from but comparable in value , size , etc ., to the items of set &# 34 ; e &# 34 ; with which he will be later presented in the test run . he has been told to watch for one item (&# 34 ; rubies &# 34 ;) to count . 108 trials in all are used . word choice is randomly determined , and each word is presented about 12 times each . 4 . reinforcement of awareness of guilty knowledge experimenter / operator asks operator asks for count subject for count of counted of counted word . if it item and if he saw chosen / stolen is off by 3 %, suspect is item . when subject says &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; warned he is suspected of the experimenter asks &# 34 ; do you non - cooperation . he is recall chosen item ?&# 34 ; when asked if he saw a subject replies affirmatively , recently stolen item experimenter tells him to write during the stimulus a 100 - 200 word essay explaining presentation . choice . this is privately done suspect is interrogated and the essay paper is still so if he &# 39 ; s guilty this retained by the subject who has procedure will reinforce no reason to believe that his knowledge and experimenter knows identity of memory of stolen item , actually chosen item . though it is not mentioned . he can also be asked to think hard about any recent crimes . 5 . pre - test phase instructions subject is instructed as in similarly . phase 2 except that &# 34 ; diamonds &# 34 ; is the to - be - counted word . attentional warnings are given again . 6 . test phase subject views word set &# 34 ; e &# 34 ; as at left , except whose contents are different actually stolen item of than &# 34 ; p &# 34 ;. 9 words are used and which suspect is this time , the chosen / stolen suspected of stealing is item is one of the 9 words is presented along with repeatedly presented . 108 8 other words . trials are given as in 3 . another embodiment of this procedure can be utilized where instead of the chosen word &# 39 ; s being randomly presented about 12 times , it is presented on trials 20 , 26 , 30 , 50 , 53 , 60 , 81 , 87 , 90 , 99 , 102 and 108 . the aim of this is to make its presentation appear more rare . the priming pro - cedure is designed to raise anti - cipation ; much time passes ( in phase 3 ) and the chosen item is optimally rare ; i . e ., it is absent . then 19 trials go by in this test phase before it finally appears for the first time on trial 20 . since the p3 response of brain is in response to a rare (&# 34 ; odd - ball &# 34 ;) event , these procedures are calculated to heighten this effect . 7 . post - test validations subject is asked to write down similarly . if recall and all recalled words ( from set recognition are sub - &# 34 ; e &# 34 ;). he has 5 minutes ; ( 5 - 6 normative , and / or if items normative .) he is then count of counted item is given recognition test where & gt ; 3 % off , suspect is the words he failed to recall warned of possible report in recall test are presented in of non - cooperation . multiple choice fashion for another test may now be him to identify . total recog - given ; i . e ., all nition is normative . count procedures to be repeated of counted item is taken . on another day . 8 . standard p3 test ( optional ) subject is given standard similarly . p3 - odd - ball paradigm with rare and frequent simple verbal stimuli to validate normal presence of p3 response to rare , counted stimuli . this is as recommended by fabiani et al . ( 1987 ). ______________________________________ fig2 through 7 show data from randomly selected subjects who ran the foregoing test and were not eliminated for non - cooperation , e . g ., poor memory test results , excessive artifact , etc . two sets of four ( 4 - set ) waves ( average erp &# 39 ; s voltage as a function of time ) are shown on each page for subjects a and b . in the set of four waves , top left is cz , top right fz , bottom left , pz and bottom right is the eye movement average which should be flat . each trace is labeled with letters to the left and right of a slash . to the right is the subject identification ; to the left is an item type which elicited the wave set . that is , &# 34 ; ch / a &# 34 ; refers to the chosen item for subject a , &# 34 ; nc / a &# 34 ; is a non - chosen ; non - tbc item for subject a , &# 34 ; tbc / a &# 34 ; is the to - be - counted response 4 - set for subject a ; p3 responses are indicated with arrows . to the eye , they seem to appear only in the ch and tbc waves . positivity is down , vertically , one cm = 10uv sweep length = 1280 m sec . stimulus is not presented until 100 m sec . into the sweep ( about a centimeter , horizontally ). the average eeg amplitude for 100 m sec . pre - stimulus is the base line from which the dependent values are subtracted . those values are : 1 . average value from 400 m sec . to 800 m sec . post - stimulus ; 2 . maximum amplitude of 100 m sec . segment between 400 and 800 m sec . an auxiliary reference for these p3 estimates is the maximum negative peak immediately following p3 , e . g ., from 700 to 1400 m sec . if the chosen / stolen item values are significantly larger than corresponding values for all other items ( except for counted item ), this subject is presumed to have guilty knowledge . it is evident that all erp &# 39 ; s to chosen -&# 34 ; stolen &# 34 ; and to tbc items show p3 &# 39 ; s especially in the pz electrode . the erp &# 39 ; s to other (&# 34 ; nc &# 34 ;) items do not show erp &# 39 ; s . accordingly , it should be emphasized that what is pointed out as a p3 is in each case confirmed by computer analysis . comparison should be made from cz record of one 4 - set ( eg &# 34 ; ch &# 34 ;) to the cz record of another 4 - set ( eg &# 34 ; nc &# 34 ;), from fc to fc and from pz to pz , etc . the bottom left in each 4 - set should be compared with bottom left in a comparison 4 - set . waves must be compared at matching time segments . the criterion for a diagnosis of deception , that is , that the chosen or stolen item &# 39 ; s erp values are larger than all other comparable erp values is extremely conservative and could lead to occasional innocent diagnoses of guilty persons . norms may be developed according to the desires of the investigator , for example norms that may be developed for a different , less - conservative but valid criterion are as follows : the average of all novel ( non - chosen / stolen , and non - counted ) items are calculated . this mean is subtracted from the mean of the erp associated with the chosen / stolen item . the difference obtained is either improbably large and indicative of deception , or it is not sufficiently large . exact values for decision criteria will come from a normative study of 100 normals in which the properties of the distribution of differences ( chosen / stolen values versus mean of other item values ) are obtained in a situation where a control word is used in place of the subject chose / stolen item . in test runs , difference values more than 2 standard deviations from the mean have only a 2 . 5 % likelihood of being obtained by chance . of course , 3 or more standard deviation criterion may be utilized . in the previously described paradigm , it is assumed that only a guilty person has specific guilty knowledge which his brain will recognize . prior to the actual lie detection test , it is assumed he does not know that the investigators have a specific piece of guilty knowledge about the crime which they will test him with , e . g ., the specific item stolen , etc . it is assumed that there has been no publicity or interrogation about this detail prior to the test . if the individual has in fact been interrogated about a particular item of knowledge , then whether one uses standard autonomic response polygraphy or the method of the present invention , a response to the test item may not be due to guilty knowledge but to the priming effect of interrogation about the item . an innocent individual questioned about a stolen necklace could respond to the test item &# 34 ; necklace &# 34 ; simply because he knows he is suspected of stealing the necklace in consequence of his having been questioned about it . possibly , he has heard of the specific details of a crime which were publicized , prior to interrogation . interrogation itself will then impart an oddball quality to the item ; i . e ., it may have been the only one he has been questioned about . in this regard , the guilty knowledge procedure may not be usable . further , in some crimes , the circumstances are such that the actual perpetrators do not know the specific details of a crime for various reasons , such as anxiety , etc . in these situations , the guilty knowledge test may be of limited use . control question procedures have been developed for these types of situations . in prior art control question procedures in autonomic response polygraphy , during the suspect &# 39 ; s questioning about the matter under investigation , he is also intensely interrogated about other acts in crimes or faults , stated to be pertinent to the matter under investigation , including the minor ones of normal childhood . information regarding thought about but not actually perpetrated acts may be elicited . the so - called &# 34 ; control questions &# 34 ; are formulated by the examiner which will ask these general areas which are not actually specific to the crime under investigation . the suspect , however , is told that during the actual lie detector test , investigators will be interested in physiological responses to all questions ( i . e ., in the specific crime relevant as well as in control question areas ) the investigators , however , are actually interested in responses to specific crime relevant questions . the suspect is told this on the theory that if he is innocent he will be just as upset and responsive about control area questions as he is about crime relevant areas . the guilty person , however , knows he is guilty of a specific crime and is suspected to be more concerned about it than about control areas since his own detection apprehension regarding his crime stirs up his concern . his autonomic nervous system is expected to respond more to relevant than to control questions . although the autonomic responses in the standard control question test are usually thought of indexing differential general sympathetic arousal and emotionality levels , it can be argued that the specific information contents of control and relevant questions are also differentially responded to in the control question test . accordingly , it is further surmised that erp responses of brain are more likely to differentiate information differences than are integrated physiological measurements as in prior control question test procedures . this follows from the fact that the brain &# 39 ; s response to input information must temporarily precede and indeed direct the autonomic response output indexing emotion . additionally , this emotional state is likely more subject various ongoing &# 34 ; noise &# 34 ; sources , such as that due to being under suspicion , than is the cognitive state , the subject &# 39 ; s knowledge of his guilt or innocence . this knowledge should remain largely independent of background emotional level , i . e ., whether or not one is upset or placid , one knows whether or not one is innocent or guilty . accordingly , the method and apparatus of the present invention measure p3 responses in a control question procedure . in the control question procedure , which is one of many embodiments of the present invention , that follows , electrophysiological and data analytic methods are the same as those described in the guilty knowledge procedure . similarly , subjects in a lab situation choose one item from nine in a box . the one of nine ratio makes a relevant item have an 11 % probability . since p3 is evoked by rare ( less than or equal to 20 %) stimuli , the relevant item probability is less than 20 %. in this procedure , differing from the guilty knowledge test procedure , the subject will be asked to identify an act he is guilty of from among a context of other acts including innocuous acts such as &# 34 ; had a birthday &# 34 ;, etc . as well as acts regarding general ( control question ) areas such as &# 34 ; stolen from work &# 34 ;. the control question items are , as in the prior art control questions procedures , designed to involve and arouse innocent subjects . the purpose of the innocuous item ( as with the irrelevant questions also used in prior art ) is to establish a base line response level . ______________________________________lab field______________________________________1 . crime occurs subject chooses an item , e . g ., suspect commits crime , a camera , from a box of 9 items e . g ., he steals a camera in response to question &# 34 ; choose from his place of an item you &# 39 ; d like to keep if employment . you could .&# 34 ; he will later be asked to pretend he stole the item . 2 . criminal and control area interrogationsubject isb &# 34 ; guilty &# 34 ; ( a ) suspect is interro - told that among the several gated in this real subjects who are in the lab investigation , about the that day , one selected a camera crime but also - ( a lab &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; subject is questioned about an item he did not choose ) and the investigators must , after various procedures , decide who it is who chose the camera . various questions are asked about the subject &# 39 ; s possible interest in cameras . this proce - dure is supposed to model the criminal investigation . ( b ) subject is then asked in ( b ) in a control area so detail about other crimes as to arouse an innocent planned , thought about , wished , subject &# 39 ; s concern with or done in near and distant past . control items ; to this is meant to stir up concern equalize concern across about the control question area control and relevant in &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; subjects , but items . obviously , &# 34 ; guilty &# 34 ; subjects must be treated similarly since guilt and innocence are not known a priori in field situations . 4 . priming phase ( a ) subject &# 39 ; s electrodes are ( a ) these procedures are attached and he is told he will quite parallel to the see ( or hear in an auditory procedures at left except embodiment ) a series of phrases as noted . it is also which describe various acts , noted that these priming thefts and crimes and which may , procedures are not include the phrase &# 34 ; stole the utilized in prior art lie ` item `&# 34 ;, where ` item ` will detection . there is no correspond to the stolen / need to stir up selected item in phase 1 , expectancy and rareness above . subject is also told with autonomic response he &# 39 ; ll see ( hear ) the phrase polygraphy . there is &# 34 ; came to lab &# 34 ; on occasion . when with p3 methodology . he sees this choice , he is told to press the button in his domin - ant hand ( right if right - handed ) to signify &# 34 ; yes , this is true .&# 34 ; subject is then told to press button in non - dominant hand so as to say &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; to other items if they are not true . in lab condi - tion , subjects are told that this means they must lie in order to evade detection . the purpose of the button - press choices ( with one built - in &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ; response ) is , as before , to force attention to and a decision about the stimulus on each trial . in this priming phase , subjects see a set of phrases different from what they will see in the actual test run ( below ). there are some simi - larities , however , in context . e . g ., if they are to see ( hear ) &# 34 ; cheated the boss &# 34 ; in this priming phase . if they are to see ( hear ) &# 34 ; took the camera &# 34 ; in the test run , they will see ( hear ) something like &# 34 ; took the tele - scope &# 34 ; in this priming phase . they never do see the chosen / stolen item in this priming phase . as in the gk test , this priming phase is designed to raise antici - pation for the actually relevant act ( e . g ., &# 34 ; took the camera &# 34 ;) and to make it appear as a more dramatic rare event when it appears later during the test run . for innocent subjects , these questions are also a kind of priming control questions and are designed to raise concern about other areas of suspected crime and dilute the oddball quality - generating effect of being suspected of the relevant crime . ( b ) subject is subjected to 108 priming stimulus presentations ( 9 phrases , 12 times each ). ( c ) subject in lab model is asked &# 34 ; did you see ( hear ) your ` crime `&# 34 ; to which he will say &# 34 ; no &# 34 ;. he is then asked to write an essay about his chosen item . ( this is for lab model only so as to reinforce subject &# 39 ; s knowledge of his choice .) ( d ) subject is told &# 34 ; we believe , based on your reaction times on your button presses and on the brain waves we &# 39 ; ve seen so far that you really have at least thought about stealing in the past , that you may have been involved in minor crimes in the past and in cheating or fooling people for your own gain . in this last test to come next we &# 39 ; ll identify your present crime .&# 34 ; ( e ) in the lab situation we would it may be possible to also add &# 34 ; we know you took use a procedure like this either the camera , the ring , or in the field also . ( see the pearls and this last test will 5b , below .) tell us .&# 34 ; a &# 34 ; guilty &# 34 ; subject ( who did choose camera should react to &# 34 ; took the camera &# 34 ; in the next test . a lab subject manipulatedi to be &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; will have chosen a different item , either ring or pearls ( in this example ) and should not react to &# 34 ; took the camera &# 34 ; but to a control item such as &# 34 ; took the pearls &# 34 ;. 5 . test run phase ( a ) after being instructed to press the &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ; button if he sees a true answer such as &# 34 ; took lie test &# 34 ; he receives the following stimulus presen - tations 12 times each : one relevant item ; &# 34 ; took the camera &# 34 ;, 3 general control items ; &# 34 ; stole from work &# 34 ;, &# 34 ; think of stealing &# 34 ;, and &# 34 ; try to steal &# 34 ;, 3 irrelevant items to which the subject must respond &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; truthfully ; &# 34 ; born a man &# 34 ; ( if a woman ), &# 34 ; went to college &# 34 ; ( if he did not go ), and &# 34 ; had small pox &# 34 ; ( if didn &# 39 ; t ); and finally a truthful irrelevant item &# 34 ; took lie test &# 34 ; which must be answered &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ;. lab &# 34 ; guilty &# 34 ; subjects are again instructed to lie if they see their &# 34 ; crime &# 34 ;. ( b ) in the lab situation , this replacement of one or more of the control control questions can be items may be replaced by more done in field also if specific control items such as suspect can be reasonably &# 34 ; took the pearls &# 34 ;. an persuaded that he is experimentally manipulated under suspicion for &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; subject will have having stolen other actually taken ( chosen ) the fictitiously missing &# 34 ; pearls &# 34 ; but will have been items . in this case a questioned about &# 34 ; camera &# 34 ; as modified version of in 2 ( a ) above . a &# 34 ; guilty &# 34 ; procedure 4 ( e ) above can subject will have taken and also be used in priming will have been &# 34 ; interrograted &# 34 ; phase . about &# 34 ; camera &# 34 ;. he will also have been interrogated about a non - chosen item to match the &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; subject &# 39 ; s treatment , but he knows what his true &# 34 ; crime &# 34 ; was . it is noted that the irrelevant &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; items here are a significant variation from what is presently done with control items in standard autonomic response polygraphy in which the irrelevant items are typically answered ( truth - fully ) &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ;. we have subjects say &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; truthfully to these items so as to preserve the uniqueness ( odd - ballness ) of the truthfully answered , &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ;- irrelevant item . we do not want big p3 responses except to the target and relevant items in guilty subjects and to target and control items in innocent subjects . thus we want to minimize uniqueness of items not designed to elicit p3 by making behavioral responses to them the same . only the relevant and control items ( for guilty and innocent subjects , respectively ) will be unique ( along with the &# 34 ; yes &# 34 ; irrelevant ite ,) in that the subjects will be concerned about their &# 34 ; no &# 34 ; answers to them . ______________________________________ the erp data are treated as previously described in the guilty knowledge procedure . subjects are diagnosed as innocent if the p3 responses to control items are larger than those to relevant items . the judgment is reversed if the p3 to relevant items is larger . referring to fig1 there is shown the system according to the present invention for analyzing the cognitive process of recognition comprising a subject 1 , with electrodes 2 attached thereto to pick up cortical eeg activity from the scalp and bring it to biological amplifiers 3 . in the schematic representation , only one complete eeg channel is shown . in practice , there are two other channels and an eye channel present . therefore , there are 4 amplifiers and a / d converters , represented here by numeral 4 . amplifier 3 receives brain waves from the head of the subject by way of electrodes 2 . the electrodes 2 are placed at the vertex , central parietal and central frontal portions of the subject &# 39 ; s scalp . an eeg cap ( i . e ., as manufactured by electrocap , inc ., dallas , tex .) of molded pliable rubber may be used in which disposable electrodes can be placed to make contact with the scalp . the p3 activity of the brain can be detected by the electrodes . the eeg amplifier 3 amplifies the electrical signals from the brain by a factor of approximately 60 , 000 which makes it resolvable into at least 50 computer units by the a / d converter 4 in the next stage , but does not amplify the activity to a level high enough to overdrive the a / d converter . any conventional converter may by utilized , and the following description does not intend to be limiting . the a / d converter is an 8 bit unit with 2 8 = 256 possible values ( 0 - 255 ). 1 . after the main program is loaded from floppy disk , the computer receives information from the operator concerning biographical information about the subject . it also receives information from the operator concerning which questions will be put to the subject , how many trials are to be run , what intertrial interval ( i t ) to use , and other parametric information . 2 . it then presents the question - items to the subject every i t seconds through display terminal 7 . it accomplishes this either by sending item word characters simultaneously to the subject and operator display terminals 8 or by sending a code number ( via an interface ) to the optional second microcomputer 9 . this unit causes a speech processor 10 to output the question items in spoken form to earphones 12 or a loudspeaker . the operator display terminal also displays the 4 a / d channels for the operator &# 39 ; s inspection . at a precise time ( 100 m sec or 300 m sec for visually and acoustically presented items , respectively ) prior to item presentation , the main computer repeatedly samples all 4 a / d input channels once every 5 ( visual ) or 8 ( acoustic ) m sec , 256 times . each sample is sent to 2 ( optionally 3 ) places : ( i ) a temporary memory buffer of 256 memory byte locations per a / d channel , ( ii ) a permanent , accumulating sum memory buffer of 512 bytes per a / d channel ( and optionally ( iii ), the optional second computer processor &# 39 ; s memory ). the functions of these storages are : ( i ) the 4 temporary buffers will be scanned for artifacts . eye and erp channels are inspected . if an artifact is found , all channels &# 39 ; temporary storage values are subtracted from their respective accumulating sum buffers . the temporary buffer is erased on every trial as the new temporary data are stored (&# 34 ; destructively &# 34 ;) on top and in place of the old values . ( ii ) the accumulating sum buffers add each trial &# 39 ; s data into an accumulating double precision ( i . e ., 16 bit ) sum . there are 36 of these 512 byte buffers ; 4 channels × 9 different items . the main computer determines on each trial which of the 9 question - items was presented , and thus , which of the 9 sets of 4 channels the trial &# 39 ; s data go to . at the conclusion of the run , each of the 36 accumulated sums is divided by the numbers of trials having contributed to it to yield the 36 average wave forms . this is accomplished by a second program which performs other post - run analyses as described below . it is automatically entered from disc at the end of the main program . ( iii ) the optional second microcomputer processor , besides being used , as noted above , to drive the speech unit , stores each single trial &# 39 ; s complete data set . this storage is of all unprocessed single trials &# 39 ; single sweeps . the eye channel data is stored but not necessary for analysis . this erp data is stored so as to enable performance of a varimax - rotated principal component analysis mostly for research purposes after the main run . two separate second processors may be utilized ; one to store the 432 sweeps and one to handle speech synthesis .) the printer 11 outputs 3 kinds of data : ( i ) it echoes all the operator - entered parameters from prior to the run . ( ii ) it outputs the numerical results of the wave analysis softwave , e . g ., latency and amplitude values of p3 in the averaged erp &# 39 ; s determined . it also outputs in the guilty knowledge test the results of comparing ( subtracting ) guilty item - evoked erp &# 39 ; s with control item - evoked erp &# 39 ; s . in the control question test it outputs the results of comparison of control and relevant items , i . e ., the printer prints diagnoses of guilt or innocence or non - cooperation , or indeterminateness . ( iii ) the printer also &# 34 ; draws &# 34 ; all 36 averages on paper for confirmation and further study . an optional xy plotter 13 plots the waves . as described in the hardware description , the main computer program accumulates all artifact - free single waves for a given electrode site ( e . g ., pz ) evoked by item # 1 into a summated erp ( for pz ) number 1 - e p1 . likewise it collects e p2 , e p3 . . . e p9 . it does the same for the ca and fz sites , to yield e c1 , e c2 . . . e c9 , e f1 , e f2 . . . e f9 . there are thus 9 ( items )× 3 ( sites )= 27 sums . the eye movement channel also yields 9 sums . after the last trial , the main program calls in another program which divides all sums by the number of contributing trials to yield the averaged erp for each item for each site . an averaged erp is a waveform showing voltage as a function of time , as is the single erp , except that the voltage for each sequential time point in the average erp is the average voltage of the erp at that time point . using 5 m sec per time point resolution as accomplished with visual presentation , e p1 , time point # 1 , is the averaged erp voltage over all item # 1 trials obtained by averaging all item # 1 trials &# 39 ; samples of voltage taken 5 m sec into the recording epoch ; time point # 2 is the averaged erp voltage over all item # 1 trials &# 39 ; samples of voltage taken 10 m sec after recording start , and so on . for each average erp the program now calculates the average value of the first 20 time points ( which = 100 m sec at 5 m sec / time point ). this is the pre - stimulus baseline eeg level , since recording begins 100 m sec prior to item onset in visual presentation ( and later for acoustic presentation ). next , for each sequential 100 m sec segment between 400 and 700 m sec post stimulus (= 500 to 800 m sec from recording onset ), the program calculates the average voltage . thus it has the average from 400 to 499 m sec , from 401 to 500 m sec , from 402 to 501 m sec . . . and so on to 601 to 700 m sec . each averaged segment value is now subtracted from the prestimulus baseline segment value . the program retains the maximum ( peak ) value among these sequential segments and defines it as the p3 value for the average . p3 is ordinarily found between 400 and 700 m sec post stimulus when complex verbal stimuli are used . its peak latency varies but it ordinarily falls somewhere between 400 and 700 m sec . p3 is thus defined as the maximum positive voltage average ( of 100 m sec of data ), referenced to baseline , between 400 and 700 m sec post stimulus for each wave . this is the main measure and the program prints it as &# 34 ; mx &# 34 ; and also prints its latency (&# 34 ; lx &# 34 ;) corresponding to the midpoint time point of the chosen mx segment . this is done for all 27 averaged erp &# 39 ; s . an auxiliary direct p3 index is accurately diagnostic ; it is called &# 34 ; dx &# 34 ;. to obtain dx the program computes the minimum value of sequential 100 m sec segments between 600 and 1200 m sec post - stimulus , referenced to baseline . this is called &# 34 ; nm &# 34 ; and is also referenced to baseline . dx , then , = mx - nm . the program also causes the printout of nm ( and its latency , lm ) and dx . nm is the maximum negativity ( minimal value of erp ) between 600 and 1200 m sec post - stimulus . it corresponds to a final negative component ; n5 , which is typically seen when the amplifier filter settings described above are used . dx then is an n5 - p3 &# 34 ; peak - to - peak &# 34 ; estimate of p3 . theoretically , n5 may be an independent component in the erp . dx serves as a criterion to ensure that late positive waves are p3 &# 39 ; s , not dc shifts . accordingly , the program has a direct p3 estimate ( whether defined as mx or dx ) for each of the 9 average erp &# 39 ; s within each channel . preferably , only the pz channel is utilized for diagnosis since it appears to be the most reliably diagnostic . the procedures described herein , however , utilize only the direct p3 determinations with the output mx value for only the pz site . in the guilty knowledge procedure , the program computes the average mx for all 7 non - guilty items . this = mx i . there is 1 guilty item , 1 to - be - counted ( tbc ) or to - be -&# 34 ; yes &# 34 ; ( tby ) item and 7 non - guilty items . in developing a norm , it appears that a value of 9 computer units ( which is about 3μv , baseline to peak ) is what the mx value will be determined for non - guilty items . for guilty items , p3 ( baseline to peak ) tends to be more than 19 units ( or 6μv ). if the mx i for non - guilty items is ≦ 9 units while the guilty item mx = mx g is greater than 19 units the printer prints &# 34 ; has guilty knowledge &# 34 ; with an appropriate probability statement . if the guilty mx value is greater than mx i by 10 units or more , a guilty diagnosis is output . it is noted on the basis of preliminary data that 9 is an average value for mx i with a standard error of about 4 . if the mx g - mx i difference is within 4 units ( i . e ., if mx g ≦ 13 given mx i = 9 ) an &# 34 ; innocent &# 34 ; diagnosis is output . if the mx i versus mx g difference is greater than 4 but less than 10 units , an &# 34 ; indeterminate &# 34 ; diagnosis is output . all the above assumes that 108 artifact - free trials were collected with no more than 54 trials rejected for artifact ; i . e ., 162 trials (= 150 % of 108 ) were run in all . if this criterion is not met , i . e ., if a 163rd trial is detected , the program stops and reports this fact , noting that &# 34 ; artifact excess &# 34 ; was detected . further , dx must be less than 0 , ( which means the erp does go negative after p3 ) in the guilty item average . otherwise an apparent p3 could be a positive - going dc shift . if the program detects mx values for less than 2 innocent items exceeding the value 19 , &# 34 ; suspected non - cooperation ; results indeterminate &# 34 ; is printed out . ( this result suggests that the subject attempted to defeat the test by not following instructions , i . e ., he was instructed to count only the tbc item but counted other items also . this could lead to p3 responses in control averages which can &# 39 ; t happen otherwise . if the dx criterion is not met , &# 34 ; indeterminate &# 34 ; is output . in control question procedures , all will have 1 or 2 relevant ( r ) items , 3 to 4 control ( c ) items , and 1 - 5 irrelevant ( i ) items . p3 will be determined in exactly the same way for the control question tests as it was in the guilty knowledge tests , for all , r , c , and i items . in order for the program to generate a guilty diagnosis , 6 conditions need to be satisfied : ______________________________________ ( 1 ) 108 artifact free trials in 162 attempts ( 2 ) no evidence of non - cooperation or lack of following instruc - as in guilty tions by subject knowledge test ( 3 ) passing memory tests , post - trial ( 4 ) dx must be greater than 0 . ( 5 ) p3 average for r items must be less than 2 standard deviations larger than p3 for i item average . ( 6 ) p3 average for r items must be a to - be - determined normative value larger than p3 average for c items . for an innocent diagnosis , one needs conditions ( 1 )-( 4 ) above satisfied and also ( 5 ) p3 average for r items is within 1 standard deviation of p3 average for i items . ( 5 ) p3 average for the c item is within 1 standard deviation of p3 average for r item ( if the value for c is less than the value for r ), or if the c value is less than the r value . ______________________________________ the program determines if the conditions listed above for control question tests are fulfilled , as in guilty knowledge procedure . although the present invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments , workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention .