J.B.

You wrote that countermeasures produces distorted responses:

"As I said in my last post, ” ..not because one would produce greater or lessor response but
because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response.”" 

If you are right and the response produced by countermeasures are not true responses, then how would it be possible to categorize the charts as anything other than inconclusive?

You stated that the person employing countermeasures will be found inconclusive or deceptive.

AMM,

As I have said, my comments regarding polygraph are restricted to criminal specific issue only.  I do not support, believe in, have never conducted, or will ever conduct a pre-employment polygraph screening in its current form.  In my opinion, polygraph was not designed for this type of examination and there are no studies that support or validate it.

Mark,

If there is unexplainable distortion in the charts, you are absolutely correct that the only proper decision would be inconclusive.  However, if the distortion is a known countermeasure and the examiner can explain it, the decision could be deceptive.  Again this is for criminal specific issue exams.   

Netin,

My intentions are to give unadulterated and unbiased education to those interested in polygraph.  My life and career does not depend on polygraph.  If polygraph was gone tomorrow, I would still have a job.  I do not tell people not to use countermeasures because I fear they will "beat" a polygraph examiner or me if they did use them.  Inversely, I tell them this because there is no evidence that supports they do or will work.  The only scientific study about countermeasures and polygraph deals with an examiners ability to detect them.  As George has eluded to, in quoting Honts et al, the popular belief is that if they are used it is for the purpose of masking deception.   

Dr. Honts and many other psychologists have studied and use validated psychological tests.  I do not see them supporting or saying that someone should distort their answers to these tests.  If someone was to distort their answers to a psychological test, I am sure they would be asked to come in for further psychological examination.  This usually entails a psychologist interrogating the person about their answers and what they "really meant by that answer." 

If I were attempting to mislead anyone and purposely trying to confuse them, I would probably say the following: Polygraph is 100% accurate; It can be used in any form to detect truth or deception;  If a person has an instrument, trust them, they know exactly what they are doing and won't make any mistakes; You don't need to know anything but to show up, get attached to an instrument, and read the results.  Now that would be a load from the farm I would not wish to be down wind from.   

I have and still do support people educating themselves about polygraph.  I have said pre-employment polygraph screening is invalid in it's current form and polygraph was not designed for this type of use.  I have told them to check the licensing requirements in their area and those of the examiner.   

The reason this discussion has become confusing to some is because I was replying to George repeated call for scientific evidence to support the detection of countermeasures.  I explained it in simple terms.  He again asked for scientific proof and the stating of a testable hypothesis.  I explained it a little more complex.  This cycle continued until we have come to the last post which I know is confusing to those who have never had any formal education in anatomy or physiology.  I have had formal college education in both and I am not including polygraph training.

As for your polygraph, I do not know your examiner or by what protocol he goes by.  To tell you the truth, I am baffled by what you have told me.  For instance, put a precursor in front of a relevant if there was an admission.  As far as I know and I read and research daily, comparison questions are the only questions that may contain this.  If you make an admission prior to the exam that disqualifies you from the process, there should be no exam.  The most valid reason, considering the invalidity of the pre-employment exam, is you have already disqualified yourself.  The purpose of the exam is to see if you have been truthful about all of the areas they are concerned about and for which they would not hire you if you had not.  His administering an exam after this just made an invalid test worse.  Did the report say you made the admission prior to the exam?  I have never said that someone could not beat an examiner.  I never said that countermeasures will not produce  tracings but that the tracings will not be normal and they will have the indications I have discussed.  I will say this, from what I have heard our results don?t surprise me.   

George,

For the sake of not confusing others with physiological terms and definitions, I will explain one of my current testable hypothesis in layman?s terms.   

If a sphincter muscle contraction is employed, the first indication the examiner will see in the chart is a short flattened mark within the respiration tracings.  The next thing that must be present to support this is a direct correlation with a GSR response.  If the examiner can draw a line from the flattened tracing in the respiration to the beginning of a GSR response, the person has used a sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure. 

For you, the tracing and correlated GSR response I described is not nor is it indicative of apnea or its appearance in the tracings.  If you would read and check my prior post, the reason for apnea and when it occurs is described as it will so similarly be in any physiology text.  It will not occur within the inspiration or expiration.  It will not occur in normal settings with a healthy person breathing at a "normal" rate.  It is induced by the sudden lack of carbon dioxide within the blood.

If you would please explain to me, what is there about this hypothesis that makes it not testable?  I ask because I am testing it now and wonder if you have knowledge of something I have never read, learned or know.

As for my statement about the use of countermeasures, this is a moot point.  You are prescribing that people use something that is not proven to work at all and I am telling them not to use it based on they have by scientific study a chance and by my experiences far greater than chance ability of being detected.  We both know what Honts et al recent study says.  I think we can both agree to say, "Call, write, e-mail your state?s senators and representatives with the facts on pre-employment polygraph screening."  We both have a common goal in this and in wanting honest people to remain and be treated as such.

J.B.

I thank you for taking criticism in a mature manner, and for your persistence in contributing to the boards.  You have assisted greatly in advancing an already interesting topic.

But I do find myself totally confused when reading your explanation as to how an "anal sphincter contraction" is detected via visually analyzing the polygraph chart.

You are ultimately claiming that, regardless of when implemented, the anal sphincter contraction will cause apnea because of a sudden build-up of carbon-dioxide.   

The respiration tracings are based solely on two pneumo tubes fitted around the upper and lower abdomen.

Respiration tracings go up on inhalation, and down on exhalation.  They also go flat when there is no breathing activity.

The polygraph test does not deal with carbon-dioxide levels within the body.  Respiration tracings are based on the PHYSICAL MANIPULATION of the pneumo tubes, and only based on the physical manipulation of the pneumo tubes.

Are you claiming that the contraction of the anal sphincter 
will undoubtedly correlate with the appearance of apnea within repiration tracings?  Furthermore, are you claiming that this apnea will be present regardless of when the anal sphincter contraction takes place?   

I would have to thoroughly disagree with your claims.

I have practiced (and I BEG of anyone who reads this post to practice) the following a number of times:

     Breathing at a uniform and steady rate, and then contracting my anal-pucker during all phases of the breathing process.  During inhalation, there is NO INDICATION that breathing ceases, by any means, when the anal pucker is contracted.  During exhalation, there is NO INDICATION that breathing ceases, by any means, when the anal pucker is contracted.  And during the slight pause after exhalation, there is a slight phase of apnea because THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SLIGHT pause in breathing.

Are you claiming that the pneumo tubes can detect a pause in breathing even though my human hands--and overall bodily sensory perception--tell me that there is absolutely no pause in the expansion or contraction of my rib-cage when employing an anal-pucker contraction during the course of breathing?  I find this hard to fathom.

And, just for the sake of argument, lets say that there is a detectable apnea when employing the anal-pucker contraction during either inhalation or exhalation (I strongly do NOT believe this is true...I even find the claim absurd!).
If this were the case (again, I'm only expressing this idea for the sake of argument), then one would have absolutely NO PROBLEM successfully using the anal-pucker countermeasure during the "slight-pause" phase of the breathing process.  The very short time period between the end of an exhalation and beginning of inhalation is a time period where breathing ceases slightly.  If one were to employ the anal-pucker technique at this point in the breathing process, there would be no visible detection of apnea on the charts because there is a normal cease of breathing at that point in the breathing pattern.  It takes a FRACTION of a second to tighten the anal-pucker.
 
As for an apnea in the GSR as the result of an anal-pucker contraction,  how do you come to this conclusion?  It is my understaning that, if ANYTHING, a muscle contraction (of any kind) will cause a heightened GSR response(?).....

J.B:

I ask you to drop your discussion about the "build-up" of carbon dioxide as it relates to polygraph tracings.  Anyone who is even remotely familiar with how the polygraph works is fully aware that a build-up of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with respiration tracings.  The pneumo tubes are either manipulated outward, or inward, resulting in lines that go up, go down, or stay level. 

Discuss your theory on the basis of how tracings are RECORDED...polygraph chart tracing elements are VERY restricted in their abilities, and are unbiased in many ways. 

Is it just me, or does anyone else following this post find some of the claims on this board absurd, illogical, and irrelevant?

Netnin

J.B.:

I am aware of your previous posts regarding the validity (or complete lack thereof) of  pre-employment polygraphs and I should have acknowledged  it in mine.  Thank you for your honesty; I applaud you for participating in this forum.

The point, obviously buried in my last post, that I was trying to make was that despite my extremely limited experience with polygraph countermeasures, I believe I could pass a Control Question Test polygraph (criminal or pre-employment) by employing the techniques I learned.  I also believe that deceptive candidates in either criminal or pre-employment settings could use the same techniques to defeat the polygraph.  This truly scares me especially when considering the National Security implications and our country's apparent reliance on the polygraph to ferret out spies.

My question to you is this: If countermeasures can be discerned during criminal or incident-specific polygraphs, how is it that, (using the same type of computerized polygraph equipment) seeminly qualified, experienced examiners are missing them during pre-employment polygraphs?  It would seem to me that if the techiques are the same, polygraphers should be able to detect countermeasures in either situation.

I realize you may feel bombarded from all sides from time to time, but I truly hope that you will continue to participate in this discussion.

AMM

George,

I have been posting physiological reasons for certain occurrences of tracings caused by physiological responses or voluntary responses(countermeasures).  I am not suggesting the tracing in the respiration is caused by apnea or is apnea but that it is caused by intrinsic muscle contractions.  It is not apnea.  I have explained the basic principle of why apnea occurs within a healthy conscious person.  I did not talk about obstructive, central and mixed apnea because they are caused and seen in physical and physiological disorders.  One of the texts I have previously suggested reading will explain the causes of normal apnea.

Quote:

George,

I would agree with you that both holding and blocking are listed as scorable criteria for the purpose of deceptive respiration in the DODPI training material you have acquired.  However, material you are reading and the cartoon characterized drawings that are associated with it are for basic discussion and basic training purposes.  The information I have been providing you is a more advance description of apnea and its physiological causes.  More specifically, I have been speaking of the chemical changes within the blood that trigger receptors to cease respiration. There are more intrinsic physiological factors associated with apnea holding and blocking then the simple cessation of respiration. 

Another example of the difference of Apnea and Anal Sphincter Contraction as they appear within the tracings and physiologically factors involved;  The onset of true apnea will result in a lowered blood volume, pressure, and heart rate. For the most part these factors are inversely seen in the case of an anal sphincter muscle contraction.   

Also, true apnea does not cause a subsequent reflex response within the inspiration or expiration  because apnea occurs at the end of expiration and before the inhibition of inspiration. The anal sphincter muscle contraction can and often does cause such reflex contraction reactions within the inspiration and expiration tracings.
 
It appears to me that your definition of blocking and/or holding would be a willful and wanton cessation of respiration.  This would be much like a child, who when angered at his parents, holds his breath to get his way.  This example, if it describes your definition of apnea, is not apnea.  A person may hold or block their respiration voluntarily to attempt to slow or block physiological responses to, among other things, physical exertion or attempt to thwart detection. This is why a person attempts to employ controlled respiration countermeasures.  This would be holding/blocking or controlled respiration but not apnea or the holding or blocking of it.  The two are much different in how and why they occur.   

Maybe Drew will help discern the intent of the wording in DODPI?s scoring criteria for added reference and clarification.  This would also give us a mediated opinion of this discussion.  I would suggest we wait for his response to avoid further impasse.

Another reference for the definition of apnea:
 
Quote:

George,

I hope your holidays were as joyful and memorable as mine. 

I am going to try to stick to Drew's suggestions and respond to your questions more directly. First the sphincter contraction countermeasure discussion and then the ability of a knowledgeable person to better pass the CQT question.

First, I will try to explain what an anal sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure will create in the polygraph tracings, physiologically why and how it can be labeled as an imposed tracing. 

First, at or near the onset of an anal sphincter muscle contraction one will see a very short flattened line in the respiration tracing(s).  This line is in direct correlation with an onset of a GSR response.  It may also be in direct correlation with a rise of blood volume and/or heart rate but may result in no change in the cardio tracing.

Second, the short flattened line in the respiration tracings is caused by a cessation of the relaxation or a sudden increased contraction of the diaphragm or intercostal muscles with no regards to loss or cessation of respiration. The physical exertion of skeletal muscles causes an intrinsic response in the sweat glands, GSR, to prepare the body for the above normal temperature that is expected with above normal resting activity.  The cardio response is also a preparatory response.  The active muscles need more and more frequent oxygen carrying blood.

Finally, the anal sphincter muscle contraction can be labeled as an imposed tracing within the respiration for the following reasons.  First, if the flattened tracing occurs within the respiration, meaning not at the end of inspiration or expiration, it is not a normal function of respiration activity or response.  Second, if the flattened tracing occurs at the end of inspiration and before the beginning of expiration, it will again be a flattened line not indicative of normal respiration activity or response.  There will be neither rounded nor pointed apieces as shown in the DoDPI illustrations of holding and blocking. Third, if the flattened line is at the end of expiration and before the beginning of inspiration, it will create a flattened line that may resemble an apnea tracing but that can be labeled as a sphincter muscle contraction because it lacks prior and post respiratory activity and/or responses and has inverse correlating GSR and cardio responses.

Now a separate issue.  The question of will a truthful person with knowledge of the CQT and countermeasures be better suited to pass.  I will use Drew?s question from his previous post as reference in answering. "For a polygraph exam involving both an experienced examiner and a motivated (to pass), knowledgeable, and trained (in countermeasures) examinee, is there information present in a polygraph chart recording that would allow that examiner to practically and reliably distinguish between a deceptive response to a control question and a response to that question which was manufactured (countermeasured) by the examinee?"  My answer is yes and no.   

Yes, if a truthful person knows how the CQT works and knows the needn?t dwell or worry about the relevant questions, they most likely will have little or no response to those questions.  Yes, if the in turn focus on the comparison questions, they will most likely have greater response to those questions.   
Yes, there is information presented in the tracings that can allow an examiner to practically and reliably distinguish it as a countermeasure.

No, if they attempt countermeasures at the comparison question, they are not guaranteed to produce a greater response then if they did not employ countermeasures.  No, there is no assurance they will be detected or not detected in employing countermeasures.  No, not every experienced examiner has the knowledge of how to distinguish between physiological and manufactured tracings.

So in part, "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" does provide a credible means for a truthful person who reads it to pass a polygraph and more so then one who does not read it.  I think the knowing what they need to focus on and what they need not is probably the greatest and most undetectable tool for a truthful person.