posted 10-23-2005 10:21 AM            

It appears the various (new) options, i.e., activity sensor & arms pads, etc., are available for use with analog instruments. If the examiner must (also) score the charts where is the advantage of computerized instrumentation?

END.....

posted 10-23-2005 11:37 AM         

It is like driving a Viper VS driving a Ugo!

You can enlarge and clarify tracings. You can zoom in or zoom out all without altering the original data collected. When you are done, your entire exam can be stored on a CD or even emailed for another opinion or QC. The computer is the best thing that ever happened to polygraph.

Many of the old school analog guys are still very happy with the analog instruments and see no reason to change. It is a matter of personal preference.

The computer also makes it easier if you have to take your show on the road. If you are interested Axciton will send you one to play with and see how you like.

posted 10-23-2005 12:50 PM            

There is no need to "zoom in" with standard ink charts. As you know you either see the tracings or you don't. Placing exams/charts on a CD is helpful as I could keep these records indefinitely and eliminate boxes/storage space. Then again, its not necessary to store exams more than a few years except for major criminal examinations.

Could it be the computerized instrument is like driving a Mercedes vs a Chevy. More expensive to purchase and maintain?

I've requested computerized instrument information from Lafayette and and I will also contact Axciton.

Thanks again.

END.....

posted 10-23-2005 01:57 PM         

I guess the real reason is that you have everything at your finger tips. It is smaller and very portable. You can use the same computer to write the report. You can also play games, check stock prices or post to this web site between charts!

I don't know how the price compares but there really is no upkeep on the computer.

I know a lot of examiners who still use the analog and they love them and see no reason to change. I just like having the computer for all the things it can do in addition to the polygraph.

posted 10-23-2005 05:36 PM            

The motion sensor is very sensitive, so it can't be set too high on some people, but I can blow it up to its highest setting to check for even the slightest movements when checking the charts for CMs later, if suspected.

With a computer, you can, as said above by Ted, increase the size of a tracing, a great benefit for the EDA reading on a CIT / GKT or whatever you might call it. You can record on auto mode (EDA), yet later view it in either mode if that's your preference. I think Limestone now records both at once (as two different tracings).

You can run the scoring algorithms as well. They don't make your decisions, but when nobody else is around, they make a nice QC reviewer so you can see if perhaps you missed something. Keith Hedges is correct, IDENTIFY comes very close to hand scoring, and it's great for checking one's scores.

Computers have up to eight channels as opposed to the standard four analog has. They're easy to fill too. On a computer, one can record the standard four plus motion sensors (up to three) and a plethysmograph, plus some of the other more experimental toys out there.

With the fear of CMs, the motion sensors are a plus (though I know analogs have them too), but since most of the chart markings are so automatic, it's easier to watch the examinee.
You can pre-make any number of templates you want and be ready in an instant. I have Backster, DoDPI, Utah, Matte, etc., test formats all ready to go as needed. I don't have to look anything up during an exam - it's all there.

I don't have to photocopy a thing to have you look over a test of mine. I can email the whole thing - from Maine to anywhere in the world in minutes - or I can send you a disk. If you just want paper charts, I can print off a dozen copies. With an analog instrument, once you spill your coffee on the charts, you're done forever.

I can hold hundreds of tests on one CD. Now it's even possible to record (audio and video plus the exam stuff) to a DVD or CD: everything, including the reports, can be recorded.

If you're involved in training, you can easily cut-and-paste chart portions to Powerpoint shows, or you can show a whole chart up on the screen. That's when being able to increase the size of a tracing comes in handy. Plus, you can move any tracing out of the way if they overlap. Actually, you can make a tracing disappear altogether.

Want to contribute to the scientific research to better polygraph? Send in your confirmed tests to any researcher requesting them. I can have Kircher Extract suck the data out of a computer test in sceonds as opposed to an hour doing it by hand, which means there'll be little use for analog charts in the future (in the science department).

posted 10-23-2005 06:46 PM            

As far as accuracy of tracings, the analog is far superior. Cleve Backster once said that if he ever had to do the one polygraph of his life, that is the most important, the one he would be remembered for, he would use an analog with no computer enhancements. I have never seen cardio tracings on a computer that even comes close to an analog.

In the end, it is a matter of preference. I chose portability and reliability and the fact I don't get ink on my hands any more! Plus, I wouldn't do a polygraph this day in age without my activity monitor (butt pad).

posted 10-23-2005 09:56 PM         

I tried the computerized Lafayette, Axciton, and Stoelting. I chose the Stoelting mainly because of the customer service. I couldn't be happier. BTW, they even have a lease to own program. If you aren't happy with it, they will gladly take it back with no questions asked.

posted 10-24-2005 11:25 AM            

It appears the type of instrument used simply gets down to preference.

(4) components w/the possibility of (23) indices in each question has served me well over the years. Giving the examinee the benefit of the doubt resolves the "close calls" during analysis. I've found if a response(s) are close on one chart they are often resolved in one of the other charts.

I agree the computerized instruments are less of a hassle relative to size, ink, paper, etc. Again, when all is said and done I think the keyword will be preference.

END.....

posted 10-24-2005 12:10 PM            

Just to clarify this "close call" issue, that was the problem: The examiner - hired by a private defense attorney - gave the benefit of the doubt to the examinee - a mistake in this situation. He found the guy truthful, and I was to come in behind him and administer a police test since the guy "passed" his test run.

I got the test, and I scored it either INC or DI - I don't remember off the top of my head. Because we disagreed, I scored it with every valid system I know, using the calipers to measure each reaction, something harder to do with an analog system.

I wrote each measurement on a copy of paper charts, and then I went over it with the examiner. (I know him very well, and I didn't want to make him look bad - potentially - by running a test and getting a DI result, which wouldn't really have helped the State anyhow.) Again, the pneumos can be the most misleading, especially if one looks for tracing patterns as opposed to real reactions (which shorter line-length will give you with the exception of a rise in baseline).

The examiner agreed, what appeared to be a close test (eyeballing it), was just that: too close. After going over actual measurements - and again, the pneumos were the most revealing - he realized he potentially made a bad call. He now uses his computer to his advantage, and I don't see any tests unless they are cut-and-dry.

He never used algorithms, but they would have tipped him off to a potential problem because they look at, for the most part, the validated scoring criteria. I would never depend on them, but they can alert to a potential problem. (At least one made a DI call and another DI or INC.)

He had to go back to the attorney and tell him his client didn't pass his "practice" exam after all, and he should think twice about sending the guy my way. Keep in mind, the examiner is a good examiner, one I would call on for help if needed. My point is there are advantages to the computer, but again, an INC call in this case would have made it go away earlier - had the examiner not given the examinee the benefit of the doubt.

posted 10-24-2005 05:09 PM            

You've made some great points in both your posts to this topic. Points worth considering when deciding what to do relative to instrumentation.

Thanks again.