Polygraph countermeasures and counter-countermeasures have been discussed on several occasions and from a variety of perspectives on this message board.  I'd like to offer yet one additional perspective.  Although the several discussions regarding countermeasures are all practical in the sense that they are task oriented, I believe the desired goals may well be more easily achieved if the focus includes short range as well as the commonly and globally offered one of a non-deceptive polygraph result.  This allows a focus on the target and not simply the process.  So what do I mean?

All of the available sources do make it clear that there are essentially two components to successfully countermeasuring the commonly used control (either directed-lie or probable-lie) question test: (1) recognizing/differentiating the relevant and control questions contained within a specific chart presentation and (2) augmenting responses to control questions.  It is at this point that I would suggest a modified focus from that which is usually offered.  In general, the effort has been on achieving an overall goal (non-deceptive examiner decision) focusing on the process involved, e.g., biting one's tongue or constricting the anal sphincter at the appropriate time (upon hearing the asking of a recognized control question).  Although this may accomplish the desired purpose (successful countermeasure in the absence of any successful counter countermeasure), I believe the approach can be improved by having an examinee's efforts directed toward the more narrow and directly achievable object of his efforts: a specific response which will be recognized as a true and scorable physiological reaction to the posed (control) question. 

We are assisted in several ways by a single document produced and released by one of the premier training facilities for those who practice polygraphy, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI).  That 61-page document, entitled Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Test Data and which can be found (HTML format) at http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi_test_data_analysis/dodpi_analysis.h... tells us all we need to know to produce successful countermeasures.  It tells us what those who evaluate polygraph charts believe to be true responses, artifacts, and homeostatic changes on a polygraph chart and how two commonly-used CQT formats (ZCT and MGQT) are performed and scored.  My intent is not to teach polygraph countermeasures at this point-if it were, I'd elaborate on the points raised in the last sentence.  At this point I'd just like to suggest for our consideration the additional focus alluded to throughout this post, i.e., that of producing specific recognized responses/reactions.  

One of the twenty some reactions that might occur over the three commonly monitored channels of physiology (respiration, electrodermal, and cardiovascular) as discussed in DoDPI's document is reproduced for you below, e.g., an increase in amplitude of the respiration tracing.  This reaction can be easily produced at will with little training, but can only be done if the examinee's focus is on producing a specific chart recording and not only on applying a given physical or mental countermeasure, e.g., tongue biting, etc.



In the case of respiration, this approach of following DoDPI's guidebook allows one to avoid commonly recognized artifacts (e.g., a deep breath) while having roughly ten scorable respiratory reactions from which to pick to produce scorable responses to control questions.

Several things about this approach (direct manipulation of a channel to produce specific chart recordings): 

(1) It largely applies to respiration, not electrodermal or cardiovascular activity (which are best manipulated through global process manipulations, e.g., tongue biting, mental images, etc).  Direct manipulation of the cardio cuff or the electrodermal plates will likely only produce easily recognized artifacts.  The direct manipulation of the respiration tracings will likely be most effectively utilized when they are used with other manipulations (tongue biting, mental imagery, etc) designed to globally affect autonomic response and in turn indirectly all of the monitored channels.

(2) It (direct manipulation of respiration) is quite powerful, inasmuch as changes in respiration (via interaction of the electrodermal and respiration centers contained within the brain stem) often indirectly affect electrodermal tracings (therefore producing twice the result for your effort).

(3) Although easily accomplished, such manipulations, as has been suggested by some research, are more likely to succeed with minimal training (following instruction) that includes feedback regarding the examinee's performance at producing desired countermeasures.

(4) It should be emphasized that the approach of directly manipulating respiratory channels through DoDPI instructional material is not entirely new, but a refinement and an augmentation to the global and indirect manipulations normally offered to affect the autonomic physiology monitored by the polygraph.

(5) The approach suggests a need for more complete nomenclature in describing countermeasure efforts.  In addition to the normal modality description (pharmacological, mental, physical), I would suggest including whether or not a given effort is designed to directly or indirectly affect a given physiological channel and thirdly whether or not the desired effort is likely to be effective or ineffective/counterproductive.  Taking this approach I would describe a deep breath as a physical, direct, and a counterproductive countermeasure and would describe an effort to produce the previously described and depicted "progressive increase in respiration tracing amplitude" as physical, direct, and effective.  Properly utilized imagery or mental arithmetic would likewise be described as a mental, indirect, and a likely effective countermeasure. 

Beech_Trees,

Yes, I am suggesting that an examinee learn to artificially produce in a timely manner those responses that DoDPI, in the referenced series of slides, has certified as being indicative of a scorable reaction to a polygraph (control) question.

The good news is that my discussion of the process (initial post) is far more complex than that which is required of the examinee who attempts to produce a tracing which contains the DoDPI-certified reaction/response.