Thank you J.B.

You state:

"I also made very specific reference to what is seen in the event one employs muscle contraction counter measures.  I would be glad to send you examples next week."

It would be greatly appreciated if you follow through.

Would you be so kind as to send diagrams/pictures that compare what the muscle contractions do in comparison to a picture of the normal reaction?

Thanks Sincerely, Netnin

J.B.

Your cooperation and participation on this message board is greatly appreciated by all, and your helping many of us further understand the theory and technicality behind the polygraph machine.  Enjoy the time spent with your family
(I'm sharing in similar experience right now as well!).

Sincerely, 
Netnin Yahoo

J.B.

Message received. Your illustrations and explanation follow:

George,

Here are some examples of countermeasures.  Both charts are from administered  polygraphs on an experienced polygraph examiner.  There are notes I have added  to both chart segments.  Not noted on the sphincter chart segment is the fact  that the subjects cardio as an anomaly due to a heart murmur and possible valve  damage or defect.  These are anomalies and not distortion or countermeasure  effects.

The pneumos from the controlled respiration show the noted apnea, in the form of  holding or blocking, is circled and normal squared.  Blocking is caused by the  contraction of the spinchter muscle at or near end of exhalation or at or near  the begining of inhalation.  If employed at or near the end on inhalation or at  or near the beginning of exhalation, one would see holding.  For physiological  explanation, 'Machinery of The Body' explains normal as "quiet breathing  movements of an individual at rest."  This falls within an approximate range of  2000 ml. (exhalation) to 3000 ml. (inhalation) of air in the lungs.  The normal  at rest volume inspired and expired is 500 ml.  This volume is known as tidal  volume. One can force expiration and deplete 1.1 liters of air from the lung.   This expired volume is known as expiratory reserve volume.  Even if one dose  this there is still a remaining 1.2 liters of air which cannot be expired known  as the residual volume.  Inspiratory reserve volume is approximately 2.9 liters  above normal inspiration.  With all this, it is possible for one to increase the  inspiration and expiration from the normal .5 liter to 4.5 liters. 'Machinery of  The Body', "Ordinarily, this mechanism is not used fully, even in severe  exercise...."

The pneumos in the sphincter contraction show noted apnea, as described in the  previous paragraph.  This physiological effector is explained by the  understanding of the phrenic and intercolstal nerves.  Unlike cardio muscle  which keeps its intrinsic rhythmicity after even after removed from the body,  the phrenic and intercostal become paralyzed when severed from their  nervous  system connections.  However, there is rythmicity  in the phrenic and  intercostal nerves within respiration.  This is made possible by the medulla.   The medulla sends the signal to the spinal cord and so on.  If there is a break  or disturbance between the medulla and the phrenic or intercostal nerves, the  rythmicity is broken.  Thus, when a muscle contraction is forced the onset  produces such apnea.

With regard to officially recognized respiratory reactions on a polygraph tracing,  DoDPI, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Test Data Analysis. (pp. 14-24), , lists and depicts in cartoon fashion the following twelve:

Increase in breathing (frequency)
Decrease in breathing (frequency)
Increase in Amplitude
Suppression/Decrease in Amplitude
Progressively increasing amplitude followed by decreasing amplitude
Progressively increasing amplitude with return to homeostasis
Progressively decreasing amplitude with return to homeostasis
Change in Inhalation Exhalation Ratio
Change of baseline
Loss of Baseline
Holding 
Blocking

Although the preceding “reactions” are pictured with rounded apices, rounded, pointed, or jagged are quite easily produced with a minimum of practice by a would-be practitioner of countermeasures.  Because there are both individual differences in amplitude as well as in onset and duration (temporal considerations) of reaction for both physiological reactions and responses produced through attempted countermeasures, the polygraph community does a relatively poor job in characterizing (even) physiological reactions let alone characterizing and recognizing countermeasure efforts.  Because of individual differences and within subject differences, the notion of being able to meaningfully pick up temporal differences between reactions and countermeasures is utter nonsense.  A given subject may react to the initial wording of a polygraph question, the end wording or even in association with his verbalized response.  And this circumstance may be different for different question/response pairing within the same polygraph chart (based on subject content, wording, etc.) for a given examinee.  Because these events may be spread over 2-5 seconds depending on typical question length, such temporal differentiation between physiological reaction and countermeasure is stargazing to the extreme.

All of the above aside, I believe that  the proof is in the pudding….  As I recently offered to do at the October 17 NAS polygraph panel public hearing, I will restate and offer that challenge to any who read this site.  I would suggest using  the roughly 15 members of the distinguished NAS panel looking at polygraph issues as an examinee pool, teach 2-3 to produce countermeasures, and then have the whole group participate in a simulated crime (one used by DoDPI or others).  A baserate (unknown to participating examiners) will be applied in the programming of guilty and innocent subjects.  Exams will be conducted, DI/NDI/Inc results recorded, as well as any determinations of the location and nature ( I will teach things other than the respiratiory manipulations referred to for purposes of this particular posting/response) of any countermeasures suspected by examiners.  Although such an exercise would have clearly insufficient numbers and statistical power, I believe the anecdotal evidence of accuracy with and without countermeasures as well as the correct and wrongful (yet another source of false positives for the polygraph community) determinations of countermeasures would be quite revealing to those with an interest in this exercise.  I would suggest that the polygraph examiners participating come from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles. And finally, I would suggest that elements of the experimental design, simulated crimes, conduct of the examinations, results determinations, and post-test interviews of both examiners and examinees be recorded  by a major investigative television production that would be selected to cover this important and hopefully interesting subject.  

George,

I would be honored to partake in anything that would further the scientific validity of polygraph, if it were to happen and I am approved to.  I disagree that a scientific study should be aired on a major network.  I do not recall ever seeing a major scientific research documented and aired by a major network.  I would agree that the study should be properly documented throughout using standardized note taking methods, written documentation, video, and movement sensor/detection instrumentation.  I would suggest the instrumentation for movement detection be recorded separate and not available to the examiner at the time of their decision.  I would also encourage a field study by one or more major polygraph units.   

My argument of countermeasure detection is a hypothesis not a theory.  I am in the infant stages of studying, researching, documenting and validating the ideas I have shared and some others.  I am unaware of any published or publicly available documentation or scientific study of this nature.  DODPI employees have told me that there have been studies but I have only heard of them not seen.  I do not use names because I cannot speak for others and some information is not public knowledge, classified.  A scientific study takes time and numbers.   

Drew,

You talk about the respiratory reaction criteria.  This is used for scoring of deceptive respiratory reactions and not countermeasures.

I agree with you that one can produce both rounded and pointed apices.  However, few have instrumentation available to experiment with.  I would still assert there is still a difference in normal and produced physiology.  I say assert because as you say, "The proof is in the pudding."  It must be scientifically proven and I do not have that.

I would ask if you could scientifically disprove my hypothesis.

I partially agree with you on your assertion that there are examiners that cannot explain physiology.  As with any profession, there are persons that are not professional or do things that hurt and hinder the profession.  I don't know how many of these persons there are though.  For me to say the polygraph community does not in general know their physiology, without numbers or statistics to compare, would not be accurate on my part.

I think as fellow polygraph examiners we should work at a common goal.  I think we both believe that polygraph has valid uses.  Those uses should be scientifically proven, standardized, and then presented for scientific acceptance and validation.  So too should all licensing requirements.  I do not think we need one test format but proven standard formats conducted by standard licensed examiners, with standard quality control review.

George,

You ask if my assertions are (groundless) conjecture?  This would suggest that I merely made a guess at the matter with no sound evidence.  I have provided you with some examples, explained what is seen, and presented physiological explanations for these.  A hypothesis is an ?educated? guess or idea that has some degree of evidence and or research.  ? hy·poth·e·sis, noun, Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses, Greek from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
Date: circa 1656 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action  2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences  3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.? http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ; It does not contain enough to be a theory and validated yet.   

I would ask you if you have any studies that invalidate my hypothesis?   

Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does?   

Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does render a no deception decision in a deceptive person?   

Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does aid in the findings of no deception in a truthful person?

The only study you have cited concentrates on an examiner?s ability, in a controlled and not field setting, to detect countermeasures.  This does not suggest that a deceptive person will be able to ?beat? either the examiner or the instrument.  ??a study reported by Rovner (1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 1978) has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity. Rovner fully informed groups of innocent and guilty subjects about nature of the CQT, how the CQT was scored, and about ways to beat the test. When these subjects were compared to naive subjects, there were no differences in accuracy rates.? http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html ;  ?A study examining the issues involved in assessing the validity of polygraph tests was conducted in 1996 by three individuals. They found that "?adequate experimental evaluation is possible but difficult" (Bradley, et. al., 1996, p.1).  http://www.cableregina.com/users/rspn/Polygraphy.htm#Vali This in essence eludes that an experimental evaluations (controlled, fictitious, etc.) are not as valid as field studies.

How about your arguments that polygraph is not scientifically valid?  The available field studies show an even higher accuracy rate.  Both controlled and field studies show the highest percentage rate is in the detection of deception.  ??both the critics and the proponents of the polygraph are in general agreement that the RI and CQ tests are quite accurate at detecting deception. It is generally believed to be in the range of about 85 to 95 percent.? (Barland in Gale, 1988, p.81).  ?In a study of actual polygraph cases conducted by a U.S. state Sheriff's office over a three and one-half year period, using confessions by either the accused or someone else who later confessed to the crime as the standard for criminal verification (i.e. the standard for 'ground truth'), the author found that over 98% of the polygraph test results were correct? (Putnam, 1994, p.260).  ?The high accuracy at which both examiner groups discriminated between the truthful and deceptive examinees demonstrates the robust state of the CQT. Especially interesting were the findings of an examiner's effect which suggests that as laboratory testers move away from their familiar mock crime paradigm, they make more false positive errors; whereas the police examiners remain consistent across different situations. The authors suggest that as a result of their experience with emotional or highly stressed suspects, the police examiners may be able to more effectively create or present the CQT. These findings support the argument that there may be some degree of difficulty in generalizing laboratory PDD examinations to the field, especially when the examinations are not conducted by trained PDD examiners.?   http://www.dodpi.army.mil/research/93r0012.htm ; Further reading and copies of other studies may be obtained at: http://www.dodpi.army.mil/research/research.htm ;

You still say that polygraph is not accurate and is not a valid science?  Please scientifically disprove these:

?Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%? (Forensic Research, 1997, pp. 215)   

?The average accuracy for such studies, conducted since 1980, has been 98%? (Forensic Research, 1997, pp. 217)   

?Thus, the aforesaid study supports Reid and Inbau's statement (Chap. 23) that the accuracy of the psychophysiological veracity (PV) examination is commensurate with and even superior to most of the presently approved forms of evidence.? (Matte, 1998, p.5)   

?A report on validity from all studies of real cases, conducted since 1980 is presented. Examiner decisions in these studies were compared to other results such as confessions, evidence, and judicial disposition. The ten studies reviewed considered the outcome of 2,042 cases, and the results, assuming that every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicate a validity of 98%. For deceptive cases, the validity was also 98%, and for non-deceptive cases, 97%. The studies were from police and private cases, using a variety of polygraph techniques, conducted in the United States, Canada, Israel, Japan and Poland.? (Matte, 1998, p. 129)

Matte-Reuss Validation Study of the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique (1989) used 122 confirmed real-life cases from a Metropolitan Police Department and a Private Polygraph firm were used.  The cases consisted of 62 deceptive and 53 no deception and 7 inconclusive.  Of the 7 inconclusive cases,  5 were solved as innocent and 2 as guilty. The Innocent and the Guilty were reported separately. The Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique correctly identified 91% of the Innocent as Truthful and 9% as Inconclusive, with no errors. It correctly identified 97% of the Guilty as Deceptive and 3% as Inconclusive, with no errors. If you were to exclude the Inconclusive examinations, the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique was 100% accurate in the identification of the Innocent and the Guilty. With Inconclusives included, the utility rate was 94%. (Matte, 1998, p.114)

Based on these studies involving real cases and excluding inconclusive decisions, it appears that field examiners are about 98% accurate in their overall decisions. When they employ control question tests they are more accurate with deceptive (DI) subjects at 99% than they are with truthful (NDI) subjects at 95% (Matte, 1998, p. 139).

What about other excepted scientific disciplines within forensic science?  How do they fair in validity standards when measured against polygraph? 

Justice Stevens cites four studies on the reliability of polygraph with mean accuracy levels at 90%, 90.5%, 97.5%, and 87% respectively. He also cites a study in which 'inconclusive' results were excluded in the calculation of accuracy, having resolved 95% of cases correctly, with finger printing, handwriting and eyewitness approaches resolving 100%, 94%, and 64% of cases correctly. When 'inconclusive' results were included, the polygrapher was more accurate than the other three methods with a 90% resolution of the cases, compared to 85% for handwriting, 35% for the eyewitness, and only 20% for the fingerprinting expert (United States v. Scheffer (96-1133), 44M. J. 442, reversed).

George,

You wrote;

Quote:
It seems to me that you indeed simply made a guess at how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector might be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You guessed that rounded pneumo tracings indicate that the subject employed countermeasures. Reid & Inbau seemlingly would disagree with you on this point. If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally.

A 1:2 respiration per second ratio would produce 30 breaths per minute.  A 1:4 would produce 15 bpm. Let us Consider the known equation from ?The Machinery of The Body? Pg. 265, ?Normal resting values: 8 liters per minute = 0.5 liters X 16 per minute.?  This would produce a 8000 ml per minute respiration. Giving the fact that normal respiration tidal volume for an adult is 500 ml at rest, one would respire 15000 ml in a minute at a 1:2 ratio and 7500 ml at a 1:4 ratio.  The examples I provided show roughly a rate of 24 bpm, a 1:2.5 ratio, in the normal breathing, 12000 ml per minute respired, and roughly 20 bpm, a 1:3 ratio, in the controlled breathing section, 10000 ml per minute respired.  Your examples produce 7000 ml above and 500 ml below normal resting respiration respectively, to extreme measures of implementation.  My examples provide 4000 ml and 2000 ml above normal resting respiration respectively.  Physiology documentation would not argue that respiratory norms do not very in adults.  Some factors effecting respiration rate and volume are physical fitness, height, weight, gender, age, illness, and physiological defects in a given individual.   

In the example you provided, Reid & Inbau are making a generalization of possible normal respiration tracings, which are illustrated in the form of character drawings and not true tracings.  I believe the intentions of their illustrations are to exhibit that such tracings are not indicators per se of abnormal respiration.  One must take into consideration the subjects medical history, all the other criteria I listed in the previous paragraph, and possible outside effectors. (i.e. noise disturbance, defective equipment, etc?)  Finally, I have stated some areas of my hypothesis here with you.  I have provide some information that is testable.  However, you do not have the quantitative knowledge and ability to test these for validity.  Those who do and wish to will be able to test the hypothesis in proper scientific forum.   

You wrote;

Quote:
J.B., it is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book.  Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion.  Scientifically speaking, for one to prove their assertion s/he must provide re-occurring evidence and, if possible, have the ability to show or reproduce that which they assert.  Again this study only speaks of the examiners ability to detect countermeasures.  It did not purport that the study proved any of the countermeasures were effective at ?beating? the examiner or the exam.  It did not focus on the issue of those deceptive subjects that attempted the employment of countermeasures and were scored deceptive.  I do not recall the study saying if truthful subjects were not instructed in or exposed to countermeasures.   

Quote:
Dr. Charles Honts (a noted psychologist) and Dr. Drew C. Richardson (a noted physiologist and former FBI Supervisory Special Agent) both stated that polygraphers cannot detect attempts at countermeasures better than chance during recent presentations to the National Academy of Sciences. Both men have extensive experience as polygraphers.

Once again, Dr. Honts and Dr. Richardson were basing their statements on the same one study that you have cited over and over again.  I have already directed you to a study that says experimental studies are inferior to field studies.  Further information is provided on this subject in reply to your next statement.

Quote:
Such studies were conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, published in peer-reviewed journals, and are cited in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I again say you are beating a dead horse on the wrong racetrack.  Do you have any other studies?  I am certain people in the scientific community will agree with my assertion that it takes more then one study to prove an outcome as valid.  It must be reproduced by others with similar findings and tested in other areas before it is accepted. 

Quote:
From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm ;
A. Countermeasures 
Countermeasures are anything that a subject might do in order to distort 
or defeat a polygraph test.  Detailed reviews of the scientific literature 
on countermeasures are available in a number of locations.24 This research leads to several conclusions.  First, there is no credible scientific evidence that drugs or other countermeasures designed to affect
the general state of the subject are effective against the CQT.25 However, laboratory studies have suggested the possibility that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions might be effective in producing false negative outcomes.26 Nevertheless, it is also important to note that training in the countermeasures appears critical to their effectiveness. 
Subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the
information are unable to achieve effects,27 and the required identified in this journals charter was the psychophysiological detection of deception.

     24  e. g., Supra note 18 at 373 (Honts & Perry); Charles R. Honts,
Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures. 15 J. POLICE
SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION 204 (1987); Supra note 23 (Honts, et. al); 
Raskin et. al., supra note 1. 

     25  Id., Honts (1987); Supra note 1 (Raskin et al.); David C. Raskin,
1986 The Polygraph in 1986: Scientific, Professional, and Legal Issues
Surrounding Application and Acceptance of Polygraph Evidence, UTAH LAW
REVIEW 29 (1986).

     26  See e.g.. Honts, et al., Supra note 22.

     27  Rovner(1986), supra note 7; also see, Charles R. Honts, David C.
Raskin, John C. Kircher, & Roben L. Hodes, Effects of spontaneous
countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception, 16,

Training is hopefully difficult to obtain. 28 Honts and Perry note that while there are no easy answers to the problem of countermeasures, it appears that computerized analysis of the physiological records substantially reduces the false negative rate attributable to countermeasure
use.29

JOURNAL OF POLICE SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION, 91 (1988).

28 Supra note 18 at 376 (Honts and Perry); there are no field
studies that address the countermeasures.

29 Id at 374; also see supra note 22 (Honts et al., 1994).



You wrote;
Quote:
No. As I recall, in the studies by Honts et al. cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "innocent" subjects were not given countermeasure instruction.
Quote:
You next adduce a list of non-peer-reviewed studies (for which you provide inadequate citations) purporting to support the validity of "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy and ask me to "scientifically disprove" them. Again, I remind you of the basic principle that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not on others to disprove it. CQT polygraphy has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. Moreover, since CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity.
Quote:
For more on the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there. See also Professor William G. Iacono's recent article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis."

Please read;
Quote:
From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm ;
A second and more important indicator of the acceptance of polygraph
testing in the scientific community is provided by the large number of
original scientific studies published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals.  Studies reporting positive results for the validity of the 
polygraph have appeared in journals such as: The Journal of Applied 
Psychology, The Journal of General Psychology, Psychophysiology, The 
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Current Directions in 
Psychological Science, Psychological Bulletin, The Journal of Research 
in Personality, and Law and Human Behavior, to name but a few.  To 
be published in any of these journals, the editor first sends an article 
out for review by two or three independent scientists who know the area 
but are not personally involved with the article under consideration.   
Those peer-reviewers comment on the quality of the literature review, 
the research design, the statistical analysis, the reasonableness of the 
conclusions drawn, and the appropriateness of the article for the 
respective journal.  The Editor of the journal also reviews the article 
and, based on her or his evaluation and on the comments and 
recommendations of the reviewers, makes a decision about publication.   
Often revisions are required before publication.  Articles with 
unacceptable scientific methods, statistics, or insupportable conclusions 
are not published.  Articles which are not acceptable within the scientific
discipline covered by the journal are simply not published in that journal.
For example, the Journal of Applied Psychology rejects 85% of the
manuscripts submitted to it for publication.  Articles which report matters
that are not acceptable psychological science do not usually make it through
the peer review (unwise to use the Iacono and Lykken data for any substantive purpose at
this time) process and are not published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
The Journal of Applied Psychology has published numerous articles 
on the psychophysiological detection of deception.22 The publication of numerous articles 
in main stream journals of scientific psychology gives a clear indication that the psychophysiological detection of deception is generally accepted as valid science by the community of 
scientific psychologists.
     The increasing acceptance of the psychophysiological detection of
deception is evidenced by the increasing number of scientific publications 
on the topic and the involvement of a larger number of psychological
laboratories. In addition, a new peer-reviewed archival scientific journal
devoted to the topic of credibility assessment began publication in early
1997.23

22 Some of the articles on the polygraph published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology are as follows: P. J. Bersh, A
validation study of polygraph examiner judgments, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 399, 53 (1969); P.O. Davidson, Validity of the guilty
knowledge technique: The effects of motivation.  Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52, 62-65 (1968); E. Elaad, Detection of guilty knowledge in
real-life criminal investigations.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 75. 521-529 (1990); E. Elaad, A. Ginton & N. Jungman, Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests.  Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 757-767 (1992); A. Ginton, D. Netzer, E. Elaad & G.
Ben-Shakhar, A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life
situation.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131-137 (1982); C. R.
Honts, R. L. Hodes, & D. C. Raskin, Effects of physical countermeasures on
the physiological detection of deception.  Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70, 177-187 (1985); C. R. Honts, D. C. Raskin, & J. C.
Kircher Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph
tests, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259 (1994); Supra note
16 (Horvath); Supra note 2 (Kircher & Raskin); Supra note 13 (Patrick, &
Iacono); Supra note 7 (Podlesny & Truslow).

23 The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness
Psychology published its first issue on 7 February 1997.  One of the main topics

You say;
Quote:
On a final note, you assert that "a study reported by Rovner (1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 1978) has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity."
Quote:
On what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, "the lie behind the lie detector," if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to "control" questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer.

Throughout our discussion and assertions of studies, I would think it can be accepted and agreed upon that there are no available scientific studies that proves one can achieve better or desired results with the implementation of countermeasures.  Would you suggest to a person who did not touch or access the safe in a burglary that they should wipe clean all fingerprints from the safe?  Or to the person who did commit the crime to place more of their fingerprints on the safe?  This is not a rational process of thought.  To suggest one to distort or add to a sample is not logical.  If evidence or data is distorted or altered, it would give suspect to the motive of the person doing so.   

Netin,

First, I would need to see a copy or the direct wording of your results.  I have never been instructed nor do I know of any document that says an examiner should say that no deception was indicated when the charts score different but I have seen it happen.  Some examiners will say that no deception was indicated on deceptive charts if there were pre-exam admissions to the relevant questions.  After you provide the information, if this does not answer the question, I will respond with further explanation.