posted 03-04-2007 07:29 PM         

Both the web site upgrade and the additions to the Standards section are very positive steps. It's encouraging to see progress being made along these lines.

Section 3.5.1.4 of the Standards calls for a motion sensor for evidentiary exams. Also, "the pad" will be mandatory for *all* exams starting 2012. This is real progress, and none too soon in my opinion. I've been using the seat pad since poly school in '04, and for the past two years have been using piezo sensors for the seat, arms and feet. In my view, they are well worth the investment.

On that note, I hope the finger plethysmograph also makes it into the "regs" someday. As with the motion pads, I find the PLE to be a worthwhile addition.

Be sure to take a close look at section 3.2.4, which addresses having minimum-accuracy validated/replicated methods firmly in place by 01JAN2012. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see where the validation debates (and data) lead us. For example, last I knew, the Federal ZCT was just one point shy of qualifying for evidentiary duty. I suspect there will be considerable effort spent in the near term by the champions of various testing formats to make a solid case for their test of choice.

Kudos to President Krapohl and all the change agents behind these advancements. IMHO, it's all good!

posted 03-05-2007 12:48 PM            

We commonly tell sex offenders that cost and convenience are not our highest priorities - the best work product is what is most important. The SOMB essentially told us the same thing.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-05-2007 07:59 PM         

Yes, at least the Lafayette analogs do. The pad, which can be daisy-chained (interconnected) to other pads for arms/feet, plugs into the AUX connector on a conventional Lafayette instrument. BTW, I love working with ink...I have a couple of 5-channel all-electronic Lafayette Factfinders. Great instruments -- the cardio tracings are outstanding -- but the vast majority of my work is on my computerized LX4000.

posted 03-05-2007 09:57 PM            

We're off topic here, but no, I don't know how you can have two "equally strong" reactions and call it a minus 1. We're talking about differential reactivity. If they are equal (i.e., not different), then you are essentially scoring an R/I test as you have subjectively decided that what you are seeing is a "large" reaction. How do you know it's large? A one-and-a-half chart division rise may be huge for a person who's flat (or dropping) in an adjacent RQ or CQ. Also, a five chart division rise might be normal for somebody else - even when answering "yes" to his name on the neutral question. How do you decide a reaction is worthy of a 3 when you determine such a score (the 3) based on how it compares to another question? In other words, you're looking at a particular person's physiological response and saying, "That's a three all by itself" - with nothing to compare it to - unless of course, you base it on the average reaction amplitude of others you've tested. I don't think we should be scoring examinee A's reactions based on those of other examinees.

I run a lot of R/I tests (as screening exams). A lot of people hit all questions on those tests hard - "big" reactions. Does that mean they are all lying to all questions - even the neutrals? If I follow the logic that big reactions mean deception, then many won't pass. That was the reason the CQ was developed. Examiners didn't know what the "big" reactions meant, and they ended up calling a lot of people liars.

Don't get me wrong, I like the R/I test, but you won't find me calling somebody DI based on that alone.

posted 03-05-2007 10:59 PM         

By the way, how do you know the RQ isn't the defective question? Could it be too emotionally charged? I thought you were the one concerned about false positives, but here you make an assumption that would seem to contradict that position.
>>>>>>>>---------------------

Defective RQ? Not likely. If I suspect there's even just a tad too much stigmatic "oomph" to any direct RQ, I'll switch to a narrowly phrased written-statement technique to soften the approach.

In my defense, I've been told from the highest echalons of the APA that Matte's Quadri-Track is just as good (but no better) than the other ZCT formats out there. They oughta know, right? Now, if I'm personally more comfortable with the Q-T's broad cutoffs, asymmetrical scoring, unbiased CQ selection (i.e., going to the left), etc. etc. etc., then what's the beef? I hardly think I'm flirting with false positives, "dual equal strong reaction rule" (which in practice is quite rare) notwithstanding. Hey, just because I don't get out my prayer rug and face Utah every day, does that make me an infidel?? Speaking of Utah, do you ever get "big" reactions to N1, N2 or N3 in your Utah exams? Why? Are the neutrals "defective?" Or did the neutrals throw the examinee's psychological set into total disarray? Oh wait, that's imposssible -- you don't believe in psych set... Of course, I suppose that could change, kind of like DoDPI scoring critera.

Hey Barry, this is deja vu all over again...but at least the board has a steady pulse!

On another note, I'm pretty sure the LX3000 cannot support a motion pad.

Dan

posted 03-06-2007 09:51 AM            

As for people hitting on neutrals, I don't know the answer. I noticed that when I was an intern back a ways, and I asked my supervisor about it. He said he'd observed it too, and speculated people realized the questions were the "safe" ones and psychologically took a break, which somehow caused some nice, large reaction. I don't know if that's the case, but it's a plausible explanation. In the end, it doesn't matter anyhow.

You've been told it's a good test? That's it? (I address that in the current AAPP Journal if you want to read my logic on that one.)

Now, to surprise you a little. I suspect Matte's test is as good as any out there too. I've said this before. If a test follows scientifically sound principles, then yes, it should work like any other, and Matte's is no exception. I am probably in the minority on that one as many still want to see test X tested and replicated several times to call it "valid."

We do have problem though. Krapohl published a list of validated techniques, and the Utah was the most accurate. As Lou Rovner pointed out, how could you then choose any other and defend it in court?

Did you really hear it's a good test from the "highest echelons" of the APA? Who would they be anyhow? I ask because I saw Matte using that as a defense in his latest attempt to defend his test in his critique of Krapohl's validated techniques article. It just sounds like you're reading from the Matte playbook.

Do we know his inside track does what he claims? No. Does it weaken the test's ability to correctly identify the NDI or DI? We don't know (that and other answers).

Matte's scoring system is a problem. It has too many rules. We know too many rules reduce reliability, and you can't have validity without reliability. The dual equal strong reaction rule flies in the face of all we know - including "psychological set," and, logically, it could only bias the test against the truthful - something you are now willing to accept since it is only "rarely" that might happen.

As for psychological set (and you'll notice it's slowly disappearing from our professional literature) if it means we set the test up so the DI and NDI will find one question type more salient than the other, then fine. I still don't like the name, as "set" in the psychological literature has a different meaning. (I don't like calling comparison questions "controls" for that same reason.)

Matte say psychological set is "Also known as Selective Attention...." That's a big problem. Selective attention requires two contemporaneous stimuli. We present them 30 seconds apart, so selective attention doesn't explain what's happening. It's just wrong, and it's one of the reasons some scientists won't take us seriously.

Now let's look at the history of things here since you see change as something negative (apparently).

The government took Backster's technique and modified it a little. Over the years they subjected some of what they were doing to research. During that time another group of people (researchers) got trained by Backster and said, "Hey, some of this stuff is unscientific and some seems to work but has never been proven." They then did research to see what worked and what didn't.

posted 03-06-2007 11:14 AM            

Let me add this though regarding the equal reactions rule. We know (from research) that the NDI don't react to the CQs as strongly as the DI react to the RQs, which is why you have asymmetrical cut-offs. If an examinee reacts equally strong to both questions, then why should we assume the CQ is bad and the RQ is good and give it a -1?

posted 03-06-2007 05:55 PM         

It's not always a case of a CQ being too hot. Countermeasures could be present. In such instances, how could a -1 not be justified?

By "highest echalons" I was referring primarily to Don Krapohl. However, the last time we (you and I) argued about the Q-T, Don posted a reply requesting that his personal opinions not be declared authoritative by those who quote him. Absent satisfactory (to Don) data, I understand and respect Don's request. Still, when the APA president -- who in this case is synonymous with the cutting edge of polygraph research -- says that the Q-T is just as good as the other ZCT formats out there, it carries considerable weight.

As for why an examiner would not use Utah in an evidentiary case, I can think of three reasons:

1. Backster has defeated Raskin in court.
2. A jury that sees "big" reactions to mid-stream neutrals may have difficulty in believing in the result of the test.
3. The Federal ZCT (which, in its bi-zone form is essentially a Backster You-Phase), was right on Utah's heels in overall accuracy -- and doesn't suffer from the mid-stream neutrals which necessitate a long "reach" when the adjacent CQ is distorted. In other words, the Backster/Federal ZCT's psych set/selective attention/salience quotient is uncompromised when compared to that of the Utah ZCT.

Hey, why don't you join us for the Backster Work Conference in December? Cleve usually gives a presentation on his court appearences against Raskin, which you might find interesting. The weather in San Diego is pleasant that time of year, and the punch is actually pretty tasty.

posted 03-06-2007 09:29 PM            

I agree with Don, but we both base that OPINION on our understanding of proven principles of polygraph. In the end it's just an opinion, but neither of us would conceal the fact that we believe the technique should work as well as any other, for the most part anyhow.

The fact that he's president shouldn't give his opinions any extra weight. There are former members of that crowd who have lots of opinions and positions that are wrong, but I'm not going there as my aim is not to embarrass anyone.

Tell me about how Backster "defeated" Raskin in court and how that possibly has any bearing on the future. Raskin's "won" (and I don't like the word as experts aren't supposed to be on either side) more than he's lost. Are you claiming to be an equal to Backster? You're not going to be able to get away with what he would in court. Raskin's made some mistakes, but I've also learned there's a lot of politics in some of the old battles in this profession - and some are still fighting them. It's unfortunate as "a house divided against itself will surely fall." If you look at the history, Raskin was opposed to polygraph as a religion, and he was persecuted for it. He, however, has real data to back up what he says - something many in the other camp can't boast.

I like the Federal Bi-zone, but you don't see it appearing in too many studies, nor have the cut-offs been empirically established.

There is a reason the Utah folks put neutrals between their questions, and at least one polygraph school director told me he likes them because so many examiners can't tell the difference between a reaction and relief - and the neutral solves that problem.

If an examiner can't explain what a neutral question is to a jury, and if he can't explain why a reaction of any size is meaningless there, then he doesn't have any business calling himself an expert witness on polygraph. (When I said above that the neutrals are the "good" (or not "bad") questions where people might relax and take a breather, I was thinking relief, which is plausible and would give you that "big" "reaction"; although, there are other reasons - none of which matter, and we may not know.)

As for why an examiner would use the Utah test in an evidentiary case you might want to consider the fact that it's the only test that meets the APA Standards of Practice. (See: I kept us on topic after all. Well maybe not.)

By the way, you can run a Utah test without the extra neutrals if you want to do so. However, just like the Federal ZCT, you may find you need to add neutrals in the middle anyhow, and you may find big relief responses there.

But let me get this straight: you think neutrals add a problematic variable to the psych set issue? What about the symptomatics? What does that zone do for a person's psych set? Is it possible you're adding an issue that wouldn't otherwise be present?

I can't make it to see Cleve this year, but I hope to meet him at APA (where I'll be listing to Dr. Kircher.) I'm curious to know what he thinks of Mythbusters debunking the plant emotions thing.

posted 03-06-2007 10:32 PM         

Don's position as APA prez does not make his opinions carry any extra weight; it's his position as esteemed researcher that does so.

Equal to Backster? Man, where did that come from? No, not in this lifetime. His "defeat" of Raskin is routinely covered in depth at the Backster work conferences. Maybe you should look into altering your schedule...

Shocker: Most of the time these days, I don't use symptomatics. Instead, I simply ask "Do you understand that I will only ask questions we have reviewed?" And I add a neutral to the end of the test. In my view, neutrals in the core of a CQT -- whether they be placed there by design or inserted willy-nilly -- add clutter, distract the examinee and complicate scoring (when "reaching" across in the event of a distorted CQ).

Re: Mythbusters (a.k.a. Jackass Goes to MIT)...
I missed that episode. Did it air during the coverage of Anna Nicole's funeral? That would explain it. But seriously, folks... Speaking of myths, they found Christ's mortal remains. Looks like that whole Easter thing is going the way of, of... psychological set. So, are you now going to trade in your New Testament for a lifetime subscription to Scientific American?

posted 03-07-2007 01:56 AM            

Its helpful to stick to the facts, and circumstances. Too much comparison reeks of insecurity, and "I love me" type braggadocio. Its just another bit of unproductive professional arm-wrestling (or other hypermasculine contest), and impresses no-one but ourselves.

I believe, Dan, you may be referring to the 1987 testimony on the MacDonald case. In which Backster discussed his test from 1970, for which he had placed the test data in a "safe place."

Perhaps you could fill us in on the facts, and enlighten those of us who are too overextended to get to the seminar. Some of us have multiple certifications to maintain, and we have to triage our training requirements.

I found this with Google, but I'm too tired to make any real sense of it.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/raskin-polygraph_1986-05-17.html
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/backster_1987aug11.html

I'm tired and cranky right now, but this all seems rather unimpressive.

------

Coupla other things...

quote:

---

Could it be too emotionally charged? I thought you were the one concerned about false positives, but here you make an assumption that would seem to contradict that position.
>>>>>>>>---------------------

Defective RQ? Not likely. If I suspect there's even just a tad too much stigmatic "oomph" to any direct RQ, I'll switch to a narrowly phrased written-statement technique to soften the approach.

---

That's a lot of vague psychologizing for me...

stigmatic oomph???

We could have a long conversation about the construct validity (psychological and physiological mechanisms) of written statement testing. It seems to me that choosing to "soften" the approach depends upon some prior knowlege or extra-polygraphic information about the truthfulness of the examinee. In the spirit of "the opera ain't over until... the test is complete..." how would we know whether to soften the test, until we complete the test and see how it worked?

and then this...

quote:

---

Are the neutrals "defective?" Or did the neutrals throw the examinee's psychological set into total disarray? Oh wait, that's imposssible -- you don't believe in psych set... Of course, I suppose that could change, kind of like DoDPI scoring critera.

---

This seems to portray a materialistic conception of "psychological set," as if it can actually be "thrown."

Plus, your last statement there seems to suggest that there is something wrong with methods that evolve and improve in the context of assumptions that are informed by new information.

and finally,

quote:

---

Shocker: Most of the time these days, I don't use symptomatics. Instead, I simply ask "Do you understand that I will only ask questions we have reviewed?"

---

At the Arizona polygraph school, which has taught the Utah techniques for some time, that type of question was taught as an introductory question. So, you may be employing Utah methods without realizing it.

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-07-2007 02:24 PM            

You’ve given me the perfect material to illustrate the dangers of failing to look at the evidence (research) and accepting by blind faith what somebody else told you.

quote:

---

Speaking of myths, they found Christ's mortal remains. Looks like that whole Easter thing is going the way of, of... psychological set. So, are you now going to trade in your New Testament for a lifetime subscription to Scientific American?

---

Throw it away? Not anytime soon. You assert Christ’s remains have been found. What evidence do you have? A filmmaker claims a “new” discovery to make some money, and you just jump aboard the ship without asking any questions? You have much more faith than I. Christianity is an historic and evidentiary faith, and an attempt to make some quick money isn’t going to change that any time soon.

Most of you know I know a lot more about theology than polygraphy, so this makes this easy for me. My point here is not a theology lesson, but rather the dangers of failing to do one’s research – Christian or not, polygraph or otherwise.

If you were to do some research on the subject (and I encourage you to do so as there is so much out there) you’d find the following (with ease, I might add):

There is nothing new about this “discovery.” The original archaeologist did his thing there in 1980. (I think his name was Kloner.)

The tomb was that of a middle to upper class family in Jerusalem. Jesus wasn’t from Jerusalem, and there’s no evidence he ever lived there; moreover, his family was poor.

There were almost 1000 such tombs found in that general location.

A Semitic language scholar read the names on the tomb and said Jesus name wasn’t among them. The filmmaker got it wrong. (The name was something like “Hunan.”)

Mary Magdalene’s name wasn’t among them either. There was a name the filmmaker claims was an alternative name (which I don’t recall) for Mary, but there’s no evidence of that anyplace else (so it’s a stretch at best).

Whatever the name was (Jesus or otherwise), he was identified as the son of Joseph. Jesus was never identified as such in the Gospels, so that would have been something new. In any event, those were some of the most common names of that day, and there were other tombs with those same names.

There were Greek inscriptions in the tomb. Strange since Jesus and his family spoke Aramaic.

The Romans had a great stake in finding Jesus’ body in that day – and they had the means to make it happen. (They weren’t nice people when they wanted you to talk.) There’s no way anybody could have hidden the body in Rome without it being found. The historian Josephus told us that Christ died and was resurrected, and there’s no record of them finding his body, which he wouldn’t have overlooked.

The Apostle Paul saw Christ after His resurrection, which he proclaimed to many, stating there were at least 500 others who had seen Him as well – many of whom were still alive if anybody wanted to check up on it. Do you think nobody would have told Paul if he were hallucinating? (Of course, it would have been a multiple-person hallucination as others saw Christ too.) Do you think Paul would have been preaching a risen Christ if he knew Christ were dead and in a tomb somewhere? It was a job that generally resulted in death, and Paul was killed for what he believed. Many will die for what they believe in, but who dies for a known lie?

Oh yeah, I can’t forget the DNA “evidence.” Does it surprise anyone that people who are buried in the same tomb might actually be related? I didn’t think so.

The historic and archaeological evidence doesn’t support anything more than an attempt to make some money on a book and documentary. Most scholars haven’t even bothered to give this the time of day as it is such a sham.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Blind faith will get you in trouble. We need to know what we are talking about, which means we have to do our homework first. The same is true of polygraph. We can’t blindly accept anything. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but then you test it to see if it stands on its own.

posted 03-12-2007 08:47 AM            

Have you read the APA's strategic plan for 2007 - 2011? You might also want to read Don Krapohl's "Message from the President" in the most recent APA Magazine.

There's a lot of good stuff on the horizon. You'll notice Don has asked Dr. Horvath to try to validate some of the most common testing techniques being taught by our APA schools.

posted 03-12-2007 07:38 PM         

You beat me to the punch! I devoured that issue of the APA newsletter/magazine. The strategic plan is emblamatic of real progress. It's an ambitious but achievable road map that bodes well for the profession. Good stuff indeed.

Re: Validation
Dr. Horvath has his work cut out for him, and I'm sure I speak for many when I say that every commonly used technique deserves a fair shake.

As far as future instrumentation goes, I'd like to know what they're thinking... Motion sensor pad(s) and a plethysmograph, maybe? Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, it spells curtains for analog instruments, I would think.

posted 03-24-2007 11:44 AM            

quote:

---

LouRovner
Administrator posted 03-24-2007 08:36 AM

Is anyone aware of scientific research that shows a lower accuracy rate when running tests without a motion sensor?

---

Good question. I would suggest this should become a new topic.

Now, why do you ask? The reason I ask this a question such as this could be asked in the way that a scientist asks a question, or in the way that a lawyer asks a question.

Trial lawyers, like good chess players and good interrogators, seem to be either taught or born with the innate skill to ask questions or engage in strategic moves to which they know the answer or can reasonably anticipate their opponent's response.

Scientists are more likely to ask questions that prompt discussion about the complexities of the issue at hand. For example: what do current research and theory tell us about the contribution of motion sensors to the validity of polygraph exams?

Lawyers are taught to force black and white answers and make accusations of ambiguity and wishy-washiness when their opposing counsel's expert wants to discuss limitations of knowledge (grey-space) or uncertainies. They are also taught to force the opponent's expert to concede to uncertainty (grey-space) and the limitations of knowledge – or risk looking stupid in the face of evidence of uncertainty - when the expert adopts a black and white presentation of the material at hand. (Lawyers are also good at giving incredulous non-verbals and looking at you like you have two head and aliens jumping out of your ears, no matter how thoughtful or intelligent your response is.)

I'll assume you are asking as a scientist.

So, on to the science...

Questions of applied science – like questions about the contribution of motion sensors to polygraph accuracy - is composed of theory, and assumptions supported by basic science, knowledge and constructs that are already established and accepted based on research demonstrating the validity of those constructs and that knowledge.

So what do we know about polygraph data? We know that the traditional polygraph component sensors (upper/lower pneumograph, EDA, and cardio) are intended to monitor activity in the sympathetic nervous system as they reflect activity in the cognitive and emotion systems in the brain.

There is a lot that we know about the sympathetic nervous system (and still a lot that we don't), and we have a rudimentary understanding of several things, including: the role of the executive/pre-frontal cortex in attention and problem solving, the role of the hypothalamus in emotion, temperature, and respiration; the role of the cardiovascular system in delivering adenosine, oxygen, and glycogen to fuel cellular activity in the brain during polygraph testing and other activities (and the muscules and structures of the peripheral nervous system during behavioral activities); and the role of acetylcholine as a very important enervating neurotransmitter in cognitive, cardiovascular, and electrodermal activity. (Sorry people, andrenaline/norepinephrine seems to have somewhat little to do with the physiology of polygraph.)

Now, we know a little less about the cognitive aspects of polygraph, except that we have some reasonably well established constructs involving conditioned response theory – including the orienting and defensive responses – and role that plays in recognition based tests like the CIT and GKT.

We know still less about the psychological/emotional mechanisms underlying the polygraph, and we may have inadvertently undermined some credibility with our sister sciences by propagating a mythical or idiosyncratic vocabulary that prompts incredulous looks from not just lawyers but knowledgeable professionals in the psychological field as well.

Anyway, polygraph component sensor are assumed to and intended to monitor activity in the sympathetic nervous system, as a reflection of cognitive or emotional activity that occurs in response to deception. That sympathetic activity is intended to be monitored as distinct from peripheral nervous system (behavioral) activity.

The empirical questions about the meaning of polygraph data, are contingent in part on the degree to which we are confident that our polygraph component sensors are sensitive to sympathetic activity while remaining robust against the noise and interference of peripheral (behavioral) activity. The basic science question is: are our polygraph component sensors capable of differentiating between sympathetic and peripheral nervous system activity. The practical or applied question is: can field polygraph examiners reliably differentiate authentic data from unadultered sympathetic nervous system activity from data that is a combination of sympathetic and peripheral nervous system activities.

So, lets examine the components for their robustness. The pneumograph sensors - often driven by air pressure sensors (which is somewhat ideal for low frequency activity like breathing), though sometimes by electromagnetic sensors (Stoelting). They are quite good at recording the low frequency oscillation of respiration activity. However they are also quite good at capturing artifacted response data from swallowing, coughing, sneezing, sniffing, holding/blocking, talking – and all the stuffy-head-fever-so-you-can-rest activity that is inherent to respiratory activity. Additionally, experienced examiners are well aware that converging or diverging upper and lower pneumo tracings may not always represent a faulty component placement, but may be indicative of a polygraph subject's conscious attention to respiration, and the difficulty of uniformly regulating the simultaneous muscular (behavioral) activity in two different muscular systems (abdominal and thoracic-intercostal). So, pneumographs seem not to do so well at differentiating between sympathetic and peripheral nervous system activity, but seem to capture data from both. It would be ideal if every polygraph subject would simply sit still and cooperate, but it is somewhat understandable that they don't.

Now, cardiograph sensors are intended to monitor activity in the sympathetic nervous system as reflected in changes in blood pressure (blood volume is rather poorly defined, pulse rate is not generally used in field scoring situations, and pulse amplitude or contractility is also not used). The question of interest is this: might there be any way of producing a voluntary and strategic blood pressure increase during the polygraph test? Both behavioral and psychological (mental) methods have been proposed. While mental efforts may be indicative of attempts to induce a sympathetic response, behavioral efforts are clearly located in the peripheral and muscular systems. The effects of gross behavioral movements are quite obvious and disruptive to the collection of usable cardiograph data during polygraph examinations.

On to the electrodermal component, which might be more robust against behavioral acivitity when compared with pneumograph and cardiograph sensors, which are both in a mechanical sense a form of motion sensor that are applied to the sympathetic nervous system. While electrodermal sensors might be vulnerable to mental efforts to induce sympathetic nervous system responses, similar to the cardiograph sensor, they might also be vulnerable to finger movements, including pressing on the sensors, tapping, or simple movements that induce measured changes in conductance or resistance between the electrode and the polygraph subject's skin.

So it seems that our components themselves present some inherent vulnerabilities and non-robustness against the interference of peripheral or behavioral activity during polygraph testing.

The next line of inquiry would be around whether examiner's themselves can reliably differentiate authentic sympathetic nervous system activity from sympathetic activity that is adultered with peripheral nervous system activity. There is some evidence that they don't.

Dr. Rovner has some very interesting work from 1986, which confirms that peripheral activity efforts do may not reliably defeat the polygraph subject – and everyone should read that work. However, the empirical questions of interest and import, go well beyond whether the test can be defeated. It is also very important to understand and refine our ability to measure and assure the difference between peripheral and sympathetic activity – else we cannot answer our critics' questions about the possibility of other causes (besides attempts to alter or defeat the test) for unusual looking test data.

The correct method of determining whether our polygraph component sensors are monitoring authentic sympathetic activity or adultered sympathetic/peripheral activity would be to include another component that is sensitive to in-test behavior (peripheral nervous system) activity – while remaining robust against sympathetic nervous system activity. If there is a more credible or theoretically sound way of reliably making this differentiation, then someone should state it out loud and in writing.

Another line of discussion would be the difference between piezzo and pneumatic motion sensors. I personally feel the piezzo sensor models data incorrectly – in ways that do not accurately reflect the subject's behavior. Muscular activity is low-frequency activity, that develops slowly and is sometimes sustained. The piezzo sensor does not illustrate this accurately, but instead fires rapidly and resets rapidly. I know people are more impressed with electrical things than simple technologies like pneumatics, but my observations tell me the pneumatic sensor is more capable of illustrating low frequency and sustained muscle activity – the one I use runs on residual air pressure (like the pneumos) with no inflation or other attention.

While psychological/methodological attempts such as Matte's inside track are interesting, they require a thorough and credible description of the role of all the above peripheral and sympathetic systems to be of credible value to the challenge of valid and reliable interpretation of polygraph test data.

The short answer to the lawyer's question would have to be 'no.' However, I don't think is either wise or scientific to allow a lawyer's tactic to define best practices in polygraph testing.

The real question is: do we think that our data accurately and reliably illustrates the difference and interaction of sympathetic and peripheral activity without the use of a motion sensor?

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-25-2007 10:39 AM            

Only they get data, while the athlete is physically active - playing tennis.

There is clearly something to learn there. Compared to that our component sensors are highly susceptible to movement noise.

I didn't ever get to look at the data.

-------

Hey speaking of wobbly-wheeled jalopies...

Its springtime, and I've got my treasured 1980 1100G running and rolling again after an early morning encounter with a drunk and the ditch in front of my house.

I was considering getting rid of the bikes, since I've discovered these german things called BMWs (they seem to be a little like porsche's, only with back seats and all wheel drive), but now I'm attached to the Yamaha again and aching for a bike trip.

Does anyone know if non-AAPP members can register for their conference. I believe its in April in New Mexico - just perfect for a short trip. Plus, it'd be cool to take my kid to Chaco Canyon

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-29-2007 09:25 AM            

At the risk of entering into this fray, I have to add my "2 cents" worth about Backster vs. Utah.

I am a Backster grad and feel that the you-phase test works very well. The problem is that I like having the added data of the 3rd relevant question.

Recently, I started using the Utah Zone, which has 3 relevant questions, along with internal neutrals. What I found was surprising: I think the internal neutrals are beneficial.

Remember what internal neutrals do? They are used (in almost all techniques) to terminate runaway reactions.

Well, they do exactly that in the Utah test structure: they tend to terminate the reaction to the previous comparison-relevant question set. The result is that the test results are clearer than when lingering reactions are present.

I think the Utah method is clean, the relevants are compared against all of the comparisons (no deciding weaker vs. stronger reactions for comparisons) and the scoring is strait-forward.

In short, I would say, don't knock the Utah method until you try it. What can it hurt to give it a try? You may be surprised.