{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043503480278422275, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01160092807424594, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Extending the Response-Time “Guilty Knowledge” Test

Sometimes it is important to determine another’s familiarity with privileged information despite their intention to conceal this knowledge. Following previous work showing that recognition memory can be used to index knowledge activation (Farwell & Donchin, 1991; Lykken, 1981), Seymour, Seifert, Mosmann, & Shafto (2000) proposed a new “Guilty Knowledge” Test (GKT) based on the response-time (RT) and accuracy to critical information. In the GKT paradigm, participants are first exposed to critical “Probe” or crime information. Following a delay, and in an ostensibly novel task, participants learn a new set of “Target” phrases (e.g., “Blue Coat”) and are given a speeded recognition task. When presented with Targets, participants are to press a button indicating “Old.” When presented with new “Filler” phrases as well as familiar Probes, participants are to respond with a button indicating “New.” If Probes are familiar, participants may respond differentially to Probes and Fillers. However, when Probes are unfamiliar no differential response is expected. Despite being motivated to respond identically to Probes and Filler, and thus masking their knowledge of the Probes, participants’ responses to Probes were reliably slower and less accurate than to Filler items. This “Guilty Knowledge Effect” (GKE) did not occur when participants responded during a block where Probes are unfamiliar (Seymour et al., 2000). This differential pattern of results for Probes and Fillers led to a high hit rate and low false alarm rate when compared to other test using physiological measures such as heart rate, or more direct measures such as EEG (Farwell & Donchin, 1991).