antrella,

We don't suggest an inhalation-exhalation duration ratio in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. However, I can see how one might well infer from the simplistic illustrations of breathing reactions provided from DoDPI training materials (at pp. 147-48 of the 4th edition) that a 1:1 ratio is "normal."

DoDPI's expected at rest inhalation:exahalation duration ratio of 1:2 will be mentioned in the forthcoming edition of TLBTLD.

Quote:


Right, that's what I assumed - so a resting human breath should go:

Breathe in 1, 2
Breathe out 3, 4, 5, 6
Breathe in 7, 8
Breathe out 9, 10, 11, 12

Please correct me if I'm wrong George, but I thought TLBTLD stated that breathing in should take as much time as breathing out (2 seconds in, 2 seconds out for example, the entire "breath cycle" lasting 4 seconds).

antrella wrote on Apr 17^th, 2006 at 5:41pm:


The reference here is to duration (time), not volume. The full text from the DoDPI document, at pp. 55-56, is as follows:

Quote:

Anyone care to explain this:

inhalation/exhalation ratio
Normally the ratio is about 1:2 in a resting human and changes during stress. Changes in the I/E ratio are a diagnostic feature or criterion in PDD and were first reported by Benussi in 1914.

I thought this was understood to be about 1:1 in a resting human.

This document is excellent.  I could not have asked for a document with better definitions, explanations, and figures.  It's like being behind the stage of a magician, watching his every trick.   


edit:  it is apparent that the readers of this document have an extremely limited understanding of physiology.  i felt like i was back in my first week of my first anatomy/physiology course.  i am convinced that the average 9th grader would have no problem understanding everying there is to know about this instrument.

Nonombre:

I think you hit a sore spot with Drew.

Nonombre,

I would suggest more Oz than Mecca.  As I recall the wizard preferred to keep his curtain closed; religious (political and academic as well) centers generally like to spread the gospel.  Why do you think what you characterize as George's public service (I completely agree with your assesment by the way) was not provided to you through obvious and more direct channels?  Why do you think George's source has done you the favor?  Hmmm....very interesting...lol  Happy reading though...

Quote:


Mr. Maschke,

I never thought I would ever hear myself saying this, but "Thank You."  I have been trying to get my hands on the latest DoDPI scoring handout and the federal polygraph handbook ever since I was licensed as a polygraph examiner in my state.

You see, as you are well aware, DoDPI sets the standard in polygraph, not just in the federal community, but among law enforcement and private examiners.  Bottom line, DoDPI is the "Mecca" of the polygraph world, yet it is so hard for non-federal examiners to get any of their publications.

Now that I have the DoDPI scoring manual and the federal handbook, I will study and apply the procedures that I know will most certainly result in a forensic polygraph examination that is relevant, accurate, reliable, and most important, standardized. 

I am dead serious about this, Mr. Maschke.  You have just done a great service for the law enforcement and private polygraph community.  Thanks again and...

Keep up the good work!

Nonombre

A Department of Defense Polygraph Institute instructional document dated August 2004 outlining DoDPI's "Numerical Evaluation Scoring System" may be downloaded as a 188kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2004.pdf

"This document introduces you to the DoDPI Numerical Evaluation Scoring System. There are other numerical scoring systems in existence; however, the DoDPI system is the preferred and standardized system of evaluation used throughout the Federal government."