A Department of Defense directive issued on 25 January 2007 changes the name of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) to the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA). I propose that since they are now going to an "academy," erstwhile DoDPI students should henceforth be known as "truth cadets!"



For more on the new directive, see Department of Defense Polygraph Program Gets Makeover on the AntiPolygraph.org News blog.

According to the academic calendar, the first truth cadets are scheduled to graduate from the newly designated Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment on 5 April 2007.

But it seems that little is changing at DoDPI/DACA save the name. The new class of truth cadets will apparently be receiving the same 14-week course of instruction as in days of yore, and may be expected to emerge no more capable of detecting lies than the graduates of pre-academy days.

To All Concerned,

The issue is between the lines on this,  now not only do you have to deal with a polygrapher, you now have to deal with 1 or 2 (possibly more) other people watching you. This means that  there is at least 1 other person watching you on the camera, or observing you through the glass. This person/persons function, will be body language and/ or facial recognition or both. The other conclusion is that the polygraph session is being taped and the tape will be reviewed before any decision is made.  The timeline for hiring or adjudication just got pushed out even further.  This article came out today on this very issue.

---------------

Link: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20070215.aspx

Text:

Polygraph Plus Procured
February 15, 2007: The U.S. Department of Defense has changed the way it uses polygraph tests (lie detector equipment). These tests, given mainly to people working for the government, will now be supplemented by additional techniques. This has produced a new term for "line detector test." Now it's a "Credibility Assessment."   

These new techniques are basically skills that some people have naturally, but repackaged so they can be taught quickly. An example of existing skills can be found in poker players who can detect another players "tells." When a player gets very good, or bad, cards, or is bluffing, they usually exhibit a unique physical sign, or "tell." Some players are very good at avoiding tells, and are thus said to have a "poker face."


An example of these new techniques can be found in the Israeli system passenger screening system, called "observation and questioning." This approach has a near perfect record in keeping Israeli commercial aircraft free from terrorist attack. The system is based on the principal that anyone up to no-good will act differently than innocent people. They will display a "tell." Screeners are taught what signs to look for, and the types of questions that will elicit a response that confirms the assessment.

The downside is that the system is time consuming. For about 90 percent of the people screened, it takes less than a minute. But for one or two percent, it can take an hour. The rest fall in between those two extremes. Airlines don't like to delay passengers this long. The Israeli method is also labor intensive, and the labor is expensive. The preferred screeners are above-average college grads, who have to successfully complete a nine week training course. Even then, the Israeli find that most screeners only last three to five years, because of the grueling demands of the work. Since September 11, 2001, many more nations have adopted the Israeli system, but few have applied it as widely as the Israelis. The system does work, with many terrorists, or criminals up to no good, getting nabbed.

Details of these new techniques must, for obvious reasons, be kept secret. But the stuff does work. Some people are able to fool polygraph machines, and some can fool "observation and questioning" type tests. But far fewer people can fool all these techniques.

----------------------

So not only is this bogus procedure costly, it just cost the taxpayers 2+ more salaries, to render another unprovable opinion. As body language and facial recognition are not proven sciences either. So it appears that more reliance on non-proven techniques continues by the truth cadet corps. But on the upside there are some good books to read on the subject.

PeopleWatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language.  By Desmond Morris.

This one is a good read, and with practice you can break any of the telltale body movements. 

The Definative Book of Body Language: How to read others' attitudes by their Gestures
by Allen & Barbera Pease.

Again this one is fun and with a little reverse thought and analysis. The info here will break any of the telltale signs also. They also cover facial expressions and gestures. Countermeasures to there new process, Yes, maybe I would say so.  It just proves that any psuedo-science is outdone with intellect and planning. 

Regards .....

LBCB,

Your perceptions on this issue are right on. But with further research I found this little gem of an article and I suspect the the Credibility Assessment will include these technologies or at least pieces of them.

Link: http://www.apa.org/science/psa/polygraph.html

Text:

Volume 19: No. 8, September 2005

IT’S NOT JUST POLYGRAPH ANYMORE

by: John G. Capps, Chief of the Credibility Assessment Directorate for Behavioral Sciences Counterintelligence Field Activities
Andrew Ryan, Chief of the Research Division for the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute 
The polygraph. It has been a principle fixture in the federal government’s security processes for decades. However, within the behavioral sciences community, the polygraph is a controversial device that has often generated a polarizing reaction. Advocates point to research indicating accuracy rates exceeding 80%, the growing acceptance of the polygraph in the court system and beneficial use of polygraph in sex offender rehabilitation. Opponents cite high false positive rates and question the underlying theories coupling the act of lying with physiological arousal. This dichotomy of opinion was most recently highlighted in a National Academy of Sciences National Research Council study which recognized polygraph weaknesses but ultimately concluded that “. . .potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet shown to outperform the polygraph.” 

While opinions differ among researchers on use, application and effectiveness of polygraph in the detection of deception, the field has began to take some interesting and exciting leaps forward. At the federal level, these efforts are being spearheaded by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) at Fort Jackson in Columbia, South Carolina. 

HISTORY OF DODPI 

DoDPI began in 1985 with the passage of the National Security Directive which transformed what had since 1951 been the U.S. Army Polygraph School to the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. The Institute began to aggressively focus on polygraph related research, curriculum development and training of examiners for the federal government. In 1994, the Joint Security Commission recommended that the government establish a more robust research program and DoDPI become the principle agent for polygraph research. However, research remained focused almost entirely on the evaluation and validation of current and innovative polygraph approaches and technologies. Recognizing continuing advances in both science and technology, DoDPI developed a new vision for its research division in the mid-1990s. With the movement of DoDPI from the Defense Security Service, to the DoD Counterintelligence Field Activity in 2002, the focus on expanding DoDPI’s research division and its funding has increased. Existing DoDPI research focuses on the science and technology of alternate methods of deception detection while continuing research designed to improve on traditional polygraph. 

“SCIENCE PARTNERS” 

The Institute has sought to establish collaborative relationships designed to advance the science of deception detection and routinely reaches out to other organizations by providing consultive expertise, project management, and project funding. DoDPI has worked with such well regarded research institutions as the Washington University School of Medicine, the University of Utah, the University of Oklahoma, Johns Hopkins, Honeywell Technology Center, the University of South Carolina, the Mayo Clinic, Veridical Research and Design, and the University of Houston. DoDPI’s own internal research initiatives, coupled with the establishment of this network of “Science Partners,” 

advanced the field and lead many scientists and researchers to begin to see a new paradigm for assessing the genuineness of human information and solidify the theoretical bases for human veracity. 

A recent report by the National Research Council recognized DoDPI as an organization “working to put polygraph research on a more scientific footing” (NRC, 2003 p. 230). This change reflects a ubiquitous increase in the contextual demands for the psychophysiological detection of deception. In the last few years, the term “credibility assessment” has replaced the more narrow “detection of deception” as it purports to encompass a much wider range of situation and contexts in which determining the existence of concealed and hidden information is vital. The continuation of these efforts and new research collaborations is leading to new and exciting avenues in the field of credibility assessment that are vital in assisting our troops in the global war on terrorism. 

DODPI’S RESEARCH AGENDA 

New areas of research in the field of credibility assessment cover a wide spectrum, some based on autonomic measures as is the polygraph, others contingent on central nervous system measures, and still others addressing naturalistic measures. In the area of autonomic measures, a great deal of promise is being shown in thermal imaging research at DoDPI. Thermal imaging, as a tool for credibility assessment, focuses on the use of a mid-level infrared thermal camera which looks at the spectrum of body heat based on changes in facial blood flow. Specifically, DoDPI is seeking to determine if the changes in facial blood flow resulting from the activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurring when someone is anxious is because they are being deceptive. This increase in blood increases facial skin surface temperature, which is picked up by the infrared camera. 

DoDPI first became interested in thermal imagery around ten years ago when DoDPI researchers looked at thermal imagery and the hand. The findings in this area were not conclusive, but in 2000 Honeywell approached DoDPI with a much improved infrared camera. The initial study conducted by DoDPI showed promise in the area of use of thermal imagery in credibility assessment and DoDPI began to fully explore this new technology. 

Current research in detecting deception has found accuracy rates in excess of 80%; however, there is much more research to be done in this area. Researchers continue to explore the underlying reasons why blood tends to pool in the periorbital area and whether other areas of the face offer valuable data. In addition, there are efforts underway to address tracking concerns due to head movement and modifications needed to the existing algorithm. Nevertheless, this technology shows excellent promise to enhance our ability in assessing credibility. 

Research is also underway at DoDPI on use of the laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV) as remote measures of assessment of individual physiological responses to emotional stress. Through LDV, DoDPI researchers study changes in respiration, cardiovascular activity, muscle contraction, and body tremor at a distance of up to hundreds of feet. Since this technology is both noninvasive and can be conducted without the subject’s awareness offers significant advantages to traditional polygraph techniques that require a cooperative subject and attachment of sensors.

Another exciting technology under investigation at DoDPI is the eye tracking technology (Eye Movement Memory Assessment). Eye tracker technology follows the pattern of the subjects’ visual attention to a scene. For example, when an individual initially scans a photo of an object it is usually with their peripheral vision, he then focuses in on what is of interest for a more attentive, higher detailed observation. Visual scene inspection is based on the process of putting together small regions of what is being viewed and integrating this into a coherent whole representation.

Studying how the eye scans a familiar object versus an unfamiliar object is the focus of current work at DoDPI. Current research has shown that with unfamiliar objects, the number of points the eye briefly fixates is greater, the time in which the eye fixates is longer, the number of regions where fixation occurs increases, and the complexity of the gaze patterns is greater. Additional research efforts involve event-related potentials (ERPs). Because certain brain processes elicit ERPs, researchers have found that particular wave forms are believed to be associated with deception. At DoDPI the three principle waveforms being studied are the P3b, the P3a and the N4.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging is being used to determine what actually goes on in the brain when a person is lying. In short, researchers at DoDPI are comparing scans of an individual’s brain when they are lying to scans when they are not. Researchers hope to target what parts of the brain are activated and require increased blood flow when an individual is deceptive.

These are representative of the varied research efforts currently underway at DoDPI and at institutions DoDPI is coordinating with. Since the challenge has never been greater and there is an urgency to search for improved methods to protect America and Americans, this in the forefront of the DoDPI mission. 

THE FUTURE: EXPANSION AND CONTINUED COLLABORATION 

The Institute is interested in expanding their network of Science Partners through their contracts and grants program. Research awards are available to funds thesis, dissertation, and institutional research awards. It is strongly suggested that potential Science Partners visit the Institute’s web page located at http://www.dodpoly.army.mil to obtain information on applying for support and all are invited to contact any member of the Research Division to discuss the possibilities and opportunities.

From the polygraph suite to the global war on terrorism, scientists, engineers, software specialists, field operatives and others in the public and private sector are joining DoDPI in advancing research, science and technology in the field of Credibility Assessment. There are endless opportunities for those in the field of psychology to join efforts to advance the degree of certainty in credibility assessment. 

--------

So besides the body language and facial recognition we will have even more unproven technologies that diminish your beloved polygraph. This is also a sales and recruiting effort to get those interested to sign on in. Which leads me to believe there successes are marginal at best.


Regards  ... 

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 2:56am:

Does one need experience as a polygraph examiner before one can render a valid opinion of the polygraph?

If a person went to a palm reader or a tarot card reader several times and came away claiming that none of the statements made by the reader were accurate in any way, would their opinion be invalid because they were merely a customer, and not a reader themselves?

I think it is nonsense for someone to claim that only a polygraph examiner can possibly have a valid opinion on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polygraph.  The perspective of the examinee is certainly different than that of the examiner, but both of them do have experience with the polygraph.

In each of my first three polygraph exams I was told by the examiner that they could easily tell I was lying and that the polygraph results backed up their conclusions.  Since I was not, in fact, lying about anything it was impossible to come away from those incidents with anything less than the conclusion that the polygraph is not accurate to the slightest degree.

radar wrote on Mar 8^th, 2007 at 4:49pm:


I agree it may be technically incorrect to speak of using countermeasures to "beat" the polygraph, which most polygraphers are seemingly willing to admit cannot detect lies. It would be more accurate to simply speak of "passing" it (whether or not one is telling the truth).

There is a need for countermeasures because simply telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass a polygraph "test." You assert that hundreds of thousands of federal employees have passed their polygraph examinations by telling the truth. But how do you know they told the truth? And how do you know that that is the reason they passed?

Costanza wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2007 at 1:22am:

Thank you for contributing your thoughts to the ongoing debate regarding the validity of polygraph testing.

Your first two posts on this board have been most illuminating.  Now that the sum total of your thoughts have been effectively communicated to the other members of this message board perhaps you could return to your other intellectual pursuits, such as wiping the drool from your chin and attempting to read the bus schedule without tiring out your lips.