In a recent paper, Acklin discussed a case of possible amnesia for a murder in terms of neurobiology, psychoanalysis, and personality assessment. Acklin accepted the defendant's claim of amnesia for the crime as genuine. The considerable literature that takes a skeptical view of crime-related amnesia was not cited, and the possibility of feigning or malingering was “ruled out” with a single sentence that does not withstand scrutiny. A review of the literature on feigned amnesia suggests that it may not be possible to rule out malingering even if the best available tools are used: There has been minimal investigation of most validity tests and estimates of base rates of feigned amnesia for a crime vary widely and make estimates of Negative Predictor Power highly unreliable. Although one cannot know from the information presented if Acklin's defendant legitimately experienced amnesia, feigning could not be ruled out using an interview and the test data cited by Acklin. I call for a moratorium on publication of further articles on crime specific amnesia that do not conscientiously examine other potential explanations and do not use current best practices for assessing negative response bias.

中文翻译：

---

排除假装与犯罪相关的失忆症吗？对阿克林 (2022) 的回应

在最近的一篇论文中，阿克林从神经生物学、精神分析和人格评估的角度讨论了一个可能对谋杀失忆的案例。阿克林承认被告对犯罪行为失忆的说法是真实的。大量对犯罪相关失忆症持怀疑态度的文献没有被引用，并且用一句经不起推敲的句子“排除”了装病或装病的可能性。对假装失忆症文献的回顾表明，即使使用了最好的可用工具，也可能无法排除装病的可能性：对大多数有效性测试的调查很少，而且对犯罪假装失忆症基本率的估计差异很大并使负预测能力的估计非常不可靠。尽管从所提供的信息中无法得知阿克林的被告是否确实患有失忆症，但根据采访和阿克林引用的测试数据，不能排除他是假装的。我呼吁暂停发表更多关于特定犯罪失忆症的文章，这些文章不认真研究其他潜在的解释，也不使用当前的最佳实践来评估负面反应偏见。