Mr Mangan

A very informed opinion, we shall see. Countering the eye movement polygraph will also happen. So the game begins a new. And I do so like a challenge.

Best Regards.

Dan,
I read over the information on the website and I don't perceive eye movement detection as any kind of a breakthrough in the detection of deception. It's based entirely on the concept of Increased Cognitive Load as measured through eye movements. Performing simple mental arithmetic can increase cognitive load and reduce the available working memory, so right away I see that the technology is not impervious to countermeasures. The company also suggests that it be used as a companion to polygraphy, which may have more utility--other than enhancing Raskin and Kircher's retirement.

EosJupiter wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:42am:


Right, since the polygraph industry can no longer con the masses with their current prop,   they will cleverly replace it/ augment it with a new one.  The "masters" of course will be found deceptive / unsuitable....regardless.  
Taxpayers of course, will continue to foot the bill for all of this "expertise"....   

Hi All:

**Disclosure - I am employed by Converus, the makers of EyeDetect.   This is my first post on a polygraph website. **

For 30+ years I have worked for technology startups, so I've seen many new technology products fail and others ridiculed and dismissed prematurely.  My first startup invented Ethernet, and IBM said it would never work and had an organized and well-funded marketing campaign to try and kill it. But Ethernet worked and changed the world of computer networking. The marketplace is already voting with their wallets on whether EyeDetect will succeed or fail, and the next few years will be interesting...

Dan, with your background I think you will agree that bad technology dies because customers don't buy it and investors don't continue to fund companies that can't show market traction and growth.  Converus' funding needs are minimal because sales have steadily grown, and our investors continue to offer additional funding to accelerate this growth.  We have years of "runway", even if our sales growth slows, and we don't expect that to happen.    

Since this thread discusses countermeasures, I thought I would post the countermeasures section of our whitepaper:
*****
1)      To determine if an examinee is using drugs or eye dilation drops, EyeDetect administers a 45-second “light test” to ensure that the examinees’ pupils are reacting normally when light is removed. If the pupils don't dilate and constrict, EyeDetect will determine the examinee is using a chemical countermeasure.
2)      Examinees may shake their heads, look away, close their eyes or squint when responding to questions. This is easy to detect because EyeDetect software tracks data loss from the sensor which directly corresponds to these activities.  Also, a test proctor can watch the examinee remotely by using EyeDetect Manager, a software application that remotely accesses the EyeDetect video camera and sensor data over a WiFi network.
3)      Some examinees answer all questions the same way (true or false), fail to answer questions, or answer randomly to avoid thinking about responses. EyeDetect alerts the test proctor when an examinee is using these countermeasures and delivers guidance categories such as: (1) Indeterminate, (2) Insufficient Data from Eye Scanner, (3) Not Credible/Too Many Timeouts or (4) Not Credible/Random Responses or Low Comprehension.

Dr. Charles Honts is a recognized expert in polygraph countermeasures, and has been studying EyeDetect in his lab at Boise State University for over a year.  He stated: “The countermeasures that are used to beat a polygraph invoke autonomic responses over a relatively long period (20 seconds). Simply put, polygraph can be beaten because the examinee has enough time for the countermeasures to work. Unlike Polygraph, EyeDetect test questions are delivered rapid fire (every 3-4 seconds), so examinees must pay close attention and stay mentally involved to answer the questions correctly. Also, the connection between the brain and the eyes is more direct; the channel from the examinees’ central nervous system to the eyes is different than the channel to the autonomic nervous system. The rapid questioning keeps the examinee from using countermeasures effectively. For this reason, I do not currently see immediate active countermeasure threats to EyeDetect.”
*****

If anyone on this thread has a sincere interest to learn more about the science, company, and product, please reach out to me at nharris@converus.com or call me at 801-331-8840 ext. 1012.  I can assure you that the dedicated employees and scientists at Converus are only trying to help credibility assessment (CA) professionals by providing additional scientifically validated tools. CA professionals may reject these new tools, but that doesn't mean that they don't work.  The science was published long before Converus became a company, so the suggestion that Drs Kircher, Hacker, Raskin, etc. falsified their research a decade earlier for personal gain is unlikely.  Attacking their integrity is unfortunate when you consider the scientific contributions they have made to expand the science of deception detection.

Accuracy claims by Converus are supported by several lab and field studies - 86.1% for single issue tests.  Higher accuracy rates can be achieved via cross-validation and alignment with single-issue polygraph in a successive hurdles approach.  Mark Handler did the math using the accuracy rates published in the APA meta-analysis for polygraph. If you feel the claims are inaccurate, he could share the math.  Also, see this link to Dr. Raskin discussing this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLvMdoMNe0&t=67s ;  We are certainly willing to revise our website and published materials if a scientist can show an error in our data and calculations.

Regards to all.  I hope that I eventually have the pleasure to meet or speak with many of you.

Hi Arkhangelsk:

Attached is the latest journal article that references all published ODT research. Fair-minded people will read the research before forming an opinion on ODT.   

I loved George's post about the difference between science and pseudoscience.  Science welcomes critics.  I expect my post will bring them out of the woodwork, and I hope they will be thoughtful and reference any flaws they see in the research vs. their personal beliefs, intuitions, and fears.  Dr. Kircher is open to any serious criticism of his research.

Also, I would be happy to send our white paper and the other referenced studies if you email me at nharris@converus.com.   

Neal, in terms of its official corporate positioning, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or pseudoscience?

I personally have a lot of respect for the Utah group. They were the first to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to polygraphy. You are correct Tom that this website is dedicated to exposing polygraph abuse and elucidating that it is "pseudo-science." But, that also fosters two schools of thought: 

1. The polygraph should not be employed for screening and monitoring as its true accuracy is not known. However, if one day, the problem of establishing ground truth in forensic settings could be solved and the true accuracy is found to be commensurate with other forensic testing, then its utility should at least be considered.

2. No way! Accurate or not, nobody has the right to delve into that private domain of our psyche and soul. Even if a valid truth machine could be invented, it should be smashed and the plans burned.

My impression is that most of the posters here are of the latter mindset.