wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 2:53pm:

Dear Marty, I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors.  The problem has always been trying to interpret this information. Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.  This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception. Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures.  A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing.  They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect.  The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth. This is a discussion better for another thread.  Start one and I will answer more there. Regards.

Indeed, the human nervous system is a wonderfully complex and flexible thing.

One thing that does seem remarkably consistent, though, are certain reactions to recognition.  Combined with the fact that tests may be designed such that the likelihood of false positive "recognition" reactions are almost nil, "recognition testing" could be a truly valuable tool for law enforcement.  Not useful for screening, though.  Unfortunately, there appears no substitute for good old fashioned background investigations.

Give Dr. Richardson the chance, and he'll talk at length about recognition testing. :)

Skeptic