posted 04-20-2006 07:03 AM            

First, I completely acknowledge that, at best, the jury is still out on NLP and the ability of eye movements to differentiate between truth or deception. I have sincere doubts that it has much value in the interrogation room other than using cues to determine how someone processes information as an aid to communication.

BUT, how about monitoring eye movement to determine if mental counter-measures are being used? By the time chart collection begins, test questions and answers should be settled and shouldn't require much processing.

Eye accessing cues might be indicative of mental countermeasure.
After observing the subjects eyes during the pre-test to dtermine access cues,
consider these possible circumstances:

#1 video of examinees face shows his eyes moving to the same access point ONLY on Comparison Questions.
#2 video of examinees face shows his eyes fixed and straight ahead from X to XX.
#3 video of examinees face shows his eyes moving to the same access point on CQ's but remain fixed and straight ahead on RQ's.
#4 any activity or lack of activity that would tend to indicate that the examinee is undergoing a different or exaggerated thought process at any particular location.
#5 At CQ stimulus onset, an examinees eyes go to an access point and an observable reaction is recorded on the chart which continues to the point where the eyes leave the access point at which time the reaction subsides.

This would require a straight on facial video of the subject during the examination, but something tells me I may be onto something here.

posted 04-20-2006 07:28 AM         

I agree that you may be on to something but I think you are not giving NLP enough credit. Knowing how someone processes information as an aid to communication is critical in any interview or interrogation.

The DEA has an agent who is an examiner as well. Her name is Jan Neiderhoffer. She is out of the SF Office and is an AAPP member. She is big on NLP and presented this at AAPP in Vancouver. Unfortunately, her time slot was at the same time as DR. Barland so attendance was not real good.

If I were you, I would look her up and put your two brilliant minds together. As I said, I think there is merit to your idea and Jan would be an excellent person to work with.

Ted

posted 04-20-2006 08:10 AM         

I agree. I don't think there is one discipline that is the "end all" technique. I kind of look at it like this:

A mechanic does not have a tool box full of hammers. Instead, he has a variety of tools including a hammer or two! Our trade is not that different in that our tool box should contain a variety of different tools (techniques) as well.

I will get the latest contact info I have for Jan but may not get to it to you until after AAPP. If you have a DEA contact, they may have her current info. Please keep us posted on your new project!

posted 04-20-2006 02:19 PM            

Jack

posted 04-20-2006 04:13 PM            

Chris Dillingham did his master's thesis on eye movements and deception, and he did the best study that I think could have been done, and he found the eye movement craze in law enforcement is a waste of time. The problem is, some examiners use them to "know" some bizarre comparison question is a good one based on their false belief that they actually work.

Vrij - the deception guru - says, essentially, eye movements are so laughable he won't even waste ink writing about them.

Based on the literature that is out there, I don't think they would help with CMs. If a person is counting the windows on his house during CQ1, his eyes will follow the picture of the house he has in memory. If he's picturing a scene that the question cues (and it has to cue something), then his eyes will follow whatever that is, and since we don't know what each examinee is "seeing" in his mind's eye during each question, then we can't know what significance they have.

NLP is based on several assumptions, some of which I don't agree with, so I have a hard time accepting anything built upon what I consider a faulty foundation. If you really want to know about NLP, you've got to read Frogs into Princes or some of the other writings of the two who espoused the idea.

posted 04-21-2006 12:10 PM            

My theory, as yet unproven, is that mental countermeasures are detectable by observing mental accessing cues in the subjects eyes as described by proponents of NLP.

Whether or not NLP eye movement is an accurate means of determining deception is irrelevent to this theory.

My initial working hypothesis includes the following statements and questions that I think need be resolved to test the hypothesis. (remember this stuff is still forming in my head and I may have to stop when my brain starts to overheat)

#1 Unadulterated by mental countermeasures, measurable reactions that occur to polygraph questions, occur in response to physiological changes as a result of initiation of the fight flight or freeze response rather than mental processing activity. (this one is pretty much settled)

#2.The purpose of mental countermeasures is to mimic genuine reaction criteria by using mental processing activity at specific points during the examination in order to overshadow genuine reaction to relevant questions. (shouldn't be much argument here either)

#3 Mental counter measures require some type of mental processing activity or visualization to create a reaction; much in the same way that the math question in a CVOS creates reaction. (again not alot of controversy)

#4 If test questions are properly prepared and reviewed, the amount of mental processing activity that that occurs at stimulus onset should be minimal. I think that it is very likely that once an examinee recognizes the question, mental processing activity of the type I am talking about stops or is overcome by FFF reaction.The examinee shouldn't have to process much at all to figure out what the truth is. The examinee knows by then what the question is, what it means, and whether or not he intends to lie. (certainly still open for argument, but this is one of the reasons they gave in polygraph school for reviewing the questions.)

#5 Is there a correlation between eye movement and mental processing activity that remains consistent within an examinee that causes an examinee to move their eyes to a specific location when engaging in similar thought processes. ie. Does this examinee's eyes always return to position X when he engages in mathmatical calculation.

#6 Is there any other discernable eye pattern that can be used as an indication that an examinee is using mental countermeasures.

#7 If #4 and #5 are proven accurate, can a practical procedure be developed to allow examiners use the information to detect or defeat mental countermeasures?

#8 This theory is not dependant on any requirement that different examinees must use the same "eye access" locations while engaged in similar types of thought.

I believe that this study will necessarily involved some way to observe and record eye movement during examinations. Video recording seems to offer the most economical way of accomplishing the task.

I don't know whether or not this theory will hold up. I am ill equipped to test it in any meaningful manner due to limited case load and zero research time. I would love to find an interested party who has the interest and means to carry it forward.
I do want at least "Thanks Buddy!" at the NOBEL ceremony if somebody can prove it. Until that time I intend to refine the theory and do what I can. If it all turns out to be a crock of B.S. I will take comfort in the words of Thomas Edison.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work"

posted 04-21-2006 03:02 PM            

quote:

---

#1 Unadulterated by mental countermeasures, measurable reactions that occur to polygraph questions, occur in response to physiological changes as a result of initiation of the fight flight or freeze response rather than mental processing activity. (this one is pretty much settled)

---

Not quite. You'll have to specify where this has been settled.

Scientists don't get to limit themselves to a single or few limited theories simply because that was what was taught by their teachers and mentors - that is akin to parochialism not science. Neither do scientists get to pick and choose from various theories simply because we like or understand them (or dislike, or don't understand them) - that is akin to apologetics not science. (The history of science is unfortunately filled with examples of smart scientists engaging in politically or fiscally convenient theorizing and research.)

The way the science game is played is that when someone points out a particular theory that may explain a phenomena, there must be some repeated and rigourous attempt to prove a theory wrong - usually through the investigation of a hypothesis or null hypothesis (sometimes initially by searching for inconsistencies with existing accepted theories) - before a theory can be tentatively accepted. Theories are more fully accepted when they bridge the gap from basic science to applied (operational) science, and perform reliably. At the same time, a sensible empirical theory cannot simply be rejected out of hand, especially when it has been integrated into the broader realm of our understanding of the mechanisms of human psychology and physiology. In the science game we deal with whatever theoretical premises or questions are raised.

There are a handful or two of known, accepted psychological mechanisms that can be argued to underly the polygraph, including FFF and the idea of cognitive complexity.

FFF, is in fact a flawed and poorly described theory involving diffuse infusion of adrenal and gloco-cortical hormones, while the polygraph appears to monitor discrete and specific reactions. Mental processing (and the many variants) may actually better account for the constellation of discrete reactions observed during polygraph testing, and are independent of emotion-based explainations that do not adequately explain the robustness of GKT/CIT/POT type tests, are is less vulnerable to emotional explaination of test results with CQTs.

quote:

---

#2.The purpose of mental countermeasures is to mimic genuine reaction criteria by using mental processing activity at specific points during the examination in order to overshadow genuine reaction to relevant questions. (shouldn't be much argument here either)

---

Perhaps. But it may be more accurate to say that mentall countermeasure are not intended to 'mimic' reaction criteria as cause reaction criteria. I suppose it is also possible that some mental countermeasures may be intended to suppress or prevent reaction criteria.

quote:

---

#3 Mental counter measures require some type of mental processing activity or visualization to create a reaction; much in the same way that the math question in a CVOS creates reaction. (again not alot of controversy)

---

Except the math question is a good example mental processing, not emotion, as a cause of reaction

quote:

---

#4 If test questions are properly prepared and reviewed, the amount of mental processing activity that that occurs at stimulus onset should be minimal. I think that it is very likely that once an examinee recognizes the question, mental processing activity of the type I am talking about stops or is overcome by FFF reaction.The examinee shouldn't have to process much at all to figure out what the truth is. The examinee knows by then what the question is, what it means, and whether or not he intends to lie. (certainly still open for argument, but this is one of the reasons they gave in polygraph school for reviewing the questions.)

---

The idea that FFF stops or overcomes mental processing is a theoretical leap. Can you imaging what it would take to argue this in front of a dissertation committe - you'd have to have a lot more than "I think." Moreover, examinee (deceptive or truthful) seem to react to CQs or RQs even if they are not trying to figure it out during the in-test phase. There are physiological correlates of deception (reaction criteria) that occur similarly in CIT (information based) and CQT (emotion based?) testing paradigm.

quote:

---

#5 Is there a correlation between eye movement and mental processing activity that remains consistent within an examinee that causes an examinee to move their eyes to a specific location when engaging in similar thought processes. ie. Does this examinee's eyes always return to position X when he engages in mathmatical calculation.

---

The hypotheses here are that there is(or is not) a statistically significant correlation. Firstly this depends upon a measurement design... Secondly, this depends upon some form of normative thresholds (or ipsative thresholds if we assume individual variability)...

quote:

---

#6 Is there any other discernable eye pattern that can be used as an indication that an examinee is using mental countermeasures.

---

Here we run the same risk as CVOS - there is no normal phenomena of human physiology or psychology that is unique or distinct to any function. With abnormal phenomena (like gonnorhea, HIV, or anthrax), the simple presence of the phenomena is indicative of the problem. With normal phenomena (like cholesteral) it is the degree of prevalence that indicates a problem. Degree of prevalence is both an empirical measurement problem, and a policy concern. For example the AMA lowered the threshold for high cholesterol from 220 to 200 - and bada-bing-bada-boom, 20 million people (just a guess) all of a sudden have high cholesterol (and now need Statin meds.)

quote:

---

#7 If #4 and #5 are proven accurate, can a practical procedure be developed to allow examiners use the information to detect or defeat mental countermeasures?

---

Sounds fun, count me in.

quote:

---

#8 This theory is not dependant on any requirement that different examinees must use the same "eye access" locations while engaged in similar types of thought.

---

This requires a lot more explanation.

just my .02

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-21-2006 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

It just happens to be the easiest to sell to polygraph students and examinees.

---

Unless, you are testing a neuropsychologist (trauma researcher), or other university researcher, both of which I met today.

Try selling FFF to them...

Actually, these guys make the same errors everyone else does when they begin to regard conceptual metaphors as physical material. They talk about "kindling of the Amygdala." They begin to regard the "kindling" part as literal and forget that it is metaphorical - it is a teaching example, the Amygdala is not actually "kindled," or heated, or pre-ignited - and their therapeutic methods do not physically "anneal" the Amygdala - they are simply antithetical metaphors, to aide our conceptual understanding. All of this mostly makes for interesting side-bar chat, and rapport and credibility building during the pretest.

I have a personal theory that God sprinkles all researchers with a little bit of autism-dust at birth. (How's that for a theoretical metaphor.)

Even good 'ole Doctor Siggy Frued made this mistake when he regarded such theoretical constructs of the ego, id, superego and personal as material or physical things.

I talked last week with an examiner who referred to a test subject who "got an inconclusive," referring to the test result as if the test result were a physical thing and not simply a probability statement.

Anyway, some of our test subjects are deviant, but not dumb. I tested a clinical psychologist last year, and next week its a former physiology professor.

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-22-2006 06:04 AM            

No I can't imagine. I am considerably more "Burgers and Fries" than I am "Beef Bourgeois"

Perhaps I have overstepped my educational level here. I am simply exploring observations and their possible relationships in an attempt to find useful value.

If I mis-state, or make an error in scientific or academic process kindly excuse my ignorance. I assure it it results from a lack of formal education rather than a lack of intelligence. I make no excuses or aplogies.

In my defense, please remember that that it was a couple of bicycle mechanics who never received high school diplomas, rather than formally educated engineers who achieved manned, powered fight at Kittyhawk. One of the key pieces of their flight puzzle fell into place when they discovered that the published, generally accepted, properly researched, academic, aeronautical data was flawed. They had the courage to ignore it and follow their observations.
Thomas Edison was home-schooled. Just imagine. If it wasn't for him, we'd all be reading these computer posts by candle light <(attempt at humor)

I am certainly neither and Edison or a Wright, but even a blind pig stumbles upon an occasional acorn.

Now this is pure conjecture: If you took 1000 of the worlds foremost biologists and engineers gave them full and free access to all of the worlds known science,provided them with everything they asked for in the way of research materials and asked them "How and why do birds fly?" ; at the end of that year all you would have is theory and several sharply polarized groups.
If you then made an announcement that the members of just one of these polarized groups would be hearing dissertations at a major university 3 years hence you would find that those dissertations would pander to the public positions of the commitee members. Of course that's just conjecture.

I don't have all the answers. I may have none of them. I do have some of the questions and I'm looking. I also have the luxury of not having to worry about what acadamia might think about my ideas. Thought for the sake of thought. Uncluttered by convention. That is true freedom.

I also suffer from intermittent attacks of polysyllabism. I'm seeking treament because my dear father (RIP) once told me that if I couldn't make a point without resorting to twenty dollar words, I didn't really understand what I was talking about and I wouldn't be able to explain it to 99 percent of the population if I did.

Please excuse the typos and spelling I have someplace to be.
ebv

posted 04-22-2006 08:31 AM            

Points well taken.

Sorry if I'm coming off too strong or opinionated. I do enjoy argument.

I'll have to google that pollysyllablism thing... never heard of it. (humor?)

Peace,

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-24-2006 04:47 AM            

Creative thinking is a good thing.

Now you need to start your critical thinking.

Sometimes you need to step away from the known (e.g. NLP), as it may not be sound itself or applicable to your hypothesis. Think your hypothesis through, write each aspect down, and then research each aspect. I would suggest looking at sleep research, as it looks at the different levels of consciousness and physiological and neurological happenings around them.

As you research, you can modify your hypothesis until you think you have a sound testable one.

Good luck.

posted 05-02-2006 08:17 AM            

Jan did a one day presentation and it was very good. I would like to see the whole three days.

She isn't saying you can tell if a person is lying when their eyes move a certain way but you can tell other things that could prove usefull. Her presentation is not just eye movements but encompasses several things realting to body language and reading people. Her main goal in using these things is to get a confession.

Here is her information:

Janice M. Niederhofer
Drug Enforcement Administration
San Francisco Fioel Division
14th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-436-7492
polynlp@aol.com
JANICE.M.NIEDERHOFER@USDOJ.GOV

I told her you might contact her. She is a very sharp lady and regardless of what you think of Neuro Linguistics you should check her out. She calls it "Detecting the Neuro-physiological Patterns of Deception"

Jack