Saidme,

Do you think that LVA can distinguish truth from deception, based solely on it technology (meaning no post interrogation)?

Saidme,

Does it really matter what kind of machine or system is used?

It's the confession that the proof, right?

Do you really think that the polygraph is any more or less accurate?

saidme,

How many times over how many years= what percent of accuracy?

I worked in the polygraph/voice analysis field in the early 70's and performed double blind analyses of tape recordings of interrogations in both English and in a non-Romance language to ascertain truth or deceit with a prototype voice stress analyzer. The research work was paid for, in part, by several federal agencies. The analyses that I performed resulted in an assessment of 83% accuracy, based on post-interrogation determination of the truthfulness of taped responses.

I felt good about the 83%, it was comparable to polygraph and a whole lot more efficient, but it wasn't good enough to call this technology "lie detection", which is why we continued to call it voice stress analysis.

I read the LVA brochure - very interesting and a quantum leap in the technology. I'd love to know the specifics of their "18 voice parameters", since I was pretty well versed in this stuff once. I find their claims to be a great stretch and am very curious how they achive this. They don't have to worry about patent infringement, I have my own and am not interested in theirs.

Which brings up an interesting point: anyone who has a background in math/science/engineering is going to be skeptical of unsupported claims about the efficacy of the polygraph. My guess is that the "Dr." who made a post is a Ph.D. - in a non-science related area, like psychology, education, and so on. The EdD's, "doctor" of education, is the lowest, I mean the absolute lowest, form of any doctorate, and they tend to overuse the "Dr." title. But I digress.

Any "Dr." who makes claims about how accurate or reliable some instrument is surely knows those claims are going to be challenged, and that is part of the scientific method. Claims without supporting evidence are BS, and that is a fact.

Quote:


Rick,

Thanks. Unfortunately, having only worked in the private sector, I'm ill equiped to search this. It's likely some others here could assist though. Being an EE by profession, I am most interested in how this was approached. Especially given the limited technology back then. These days the most sophisticated DSP is dirt cheap.

-Marty

What a bloody Joke!!!!!!!!

The Software in question was originally marketed in Israel as a child's TOY!! (Ex-Sense Pro) and sold in toystores and bookstores without that much success.

Please keep in mind that here in Israel, we also use handwriting analysis, amulets, and magic spells (blessings) as a matter of routine within our government agencies.

The Hebrew word for "sucker" is "freir", and only freirs would be taken in by such deceptive marketing!