posted 10-23-2004 02:44 PM            

1. 1996 Textbook "Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph"
2. 2000 textbook "Examination and Cross-Examination of Experts in Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph"

To purchase these books, visit http://www.mattepolygraph.com/jam/bookstore.html

Now on to the article:

The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique was initially developed in 1977 as a result of field experiments designed to resolve the problem of false positives ion psychophysiological veracity (PV) examinations using the polygraph. Its first publication occurred in Polygraph, Vol. 7, Nr. 4 Journal of the American Polygraph Association in 1978, under the title of "Polygraph Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique." The title of the technique was subsequently changed from Quadri-Zone to Quadri-Track ZCT to conform to Cleve Backster's definition of the term "Zone." Subsequent publications of the aforementioned technique occurred in the textbooks titled "The Art and Science of the Polygraph Technique" published in 1980, "Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph" 1996, and "Examination and Cross-Examination of Experts in Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph" 2000.

A large field validation study on the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique was completed in 1989 as part of a doctoral dissertation which was published in Research Abstract, LD 01452, Vol. 1502, 1989, Proquest Information & Learning (UMI),and Polygraph, Vol. 18, Nr. 4, 1989. The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique has been successfully used for more than two decades at the Buffalo Police Department in New York State as have many others in the field. The aforesaid technique is currently being taught at several accredited polygraph schools.

The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique is a polygraph technique used exclusively for Single-Issue tests. The QT Zone Comparison Technique employs Backster's basic test structure and quantification system with some refinements and the addition of another Spot (Inside Track) consisting of a control/relevant question pair to deal with an Innnocent Examinee's "fear of error' and the Guilty examinee's "hope of error".

Interestingly, since 1996 the Backster ZCT has incorporated the Inside Track's fear/hope of error questions into its test structure as an option, hence little difference remains between the two techniques other than the application of Backster's "Either-Or" rule where the Quadri-Track ZCT restricts the comparison of each relevant question to the control question preceding it within the same Track and the assignment of a minus one score than than a zero (in the Pneumo and Cardio tracings only) when the relevant question elicits a significant reaction and its neighboring control question also elicits a significant reaction, inasmuch as Backster's "Either-Or" rule deems that control question to be defective.

Furthermore, the increasing score threshold required for a determination of truth or deception does not diminish with the addition of charts collected and scored. It therefore becomes apparent that the Quadri-Track ZCT's inside Track provides a safeguard against false positive and false negatives, and its application of Backster's "Either-Or" rule into the quantification system provides a significant anti-countermeasure.

Of interest is the fact that in 1985, Dr. Paul Ekman in his book "Telling Lies" devoted primarily to verbal and non-verbal behavior, discusses the elements of "fear" in his chapter on the "Polygraph as Lie Catcher" and states "The severity of the punishment will influence the truthful person's fear of being misjudge just as much as the lying person's fear of being spotted -both suffer the same consequence." Dr. Ekman feels that the polygraph examination, like behavioral clues to deceit, is vulnerable to what he terms the "Othello Error" because Othello failed to recognize that Desdemona's fear might not be a guilty adulterer's anguish about being caught but could be a faithful wife's fear of a husband who would not believe her. Both cause an autonomic nervous response.

Furthermore, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies 2003 report on polygraph makes a strong argument that field polygraph examinations are vulnerable to false positives by the innocent examinee who fears that an error will be made on his polygraph test which will mimic a deceptive response. Needless to say, this phenomenon can be used during cross-examination of a polygraphist to challenge the reason for the presence of reactions to relevant questions, which can be successfully addressed by the polygraphist who employed the Quadri-Track
ZCT's Inside Track containing the Fear/Hope of Error question set.

The best written source for the Quadri-Track ZCT is the 1996 textbook, "Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph - Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection" by James Allan Matte, Publisher:
J.A.M. Publications, 43 Brookside Drive, Williamsville, NY 14221-6915, and the 2002 Supplement to Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph, from JAM Publications. Aforementioned publications are advertised in JAM website at: http://www.mattepolygraph.com/jam/bookstore.html

James Matte

[This message has been edited by detector (edited 10-23-2004).]

posted 10-23-2004 08:05 PM            

I have a question for Dr Matte or anyone else who might know.

Has the research that supports the quadri-track been published in a scientific journal.

As far as i am informed the APA journal polygraph is not considered a scientific journal more of a trade journal.

I may be going to court to supply evidence to support a deceptive finding using the qt. This will be an issue if no publication appears in a scientific journal in support of the quadri-track.

posted 10-24-2004 02:18 PM         

Call Dr. Matte in New York. He is a great guy and will furnish whatever you need.

posted 10-25-2004 06:16 AM            

I know of no independent studies on the format (and I use it on occasion). At an APA seminar this year, one of the instructors said the technique is not considered a "validated" technique. (Keep in mind "validated" tends to mean "acceptable" in the polygraph world, but has a differnet meaning in the scientific world.)

As I mentioned, I use the technique on occasion, and I have had good luck and bad luck with the inside track questions. Pre-testing those questions is an art form, and if you mess up, they don't work as well as one would expect them to.