posted 09-06-2003 07:07 PM            

Physical countermeasures seem to be the most widely used and taught method, and in my opinion would be the most effective way to generate a false negative error. Activity sensors can be improved to a point were the movement can be localised with the employment of some of the sensors currently available but not being used as discussed in previous threads. The current activity sensors are they good enough?

My question is are mental countermeasures even able to generate a false negative error with a guilty subject. I think on their own, based on research conducted by Rovner and Honts that on their own they are probably ineffective.

So if that is the case and I am not 100% sure it is,if we eliminate physical countermeasures with detection devices,have we eliminated all effective published c/measures.

Any thoughts Bob you seem to be in the know with this area, or anyone else?

Paul Woolley

posted 09-08-2003 12:56 AM         

I can not speak of ‘just how effective’ mental countermeasures are at being able to produce a ‘false negative.’ I would certainly view it as possible and of significant concern, even though I’ve been lead to believe there is some research which suggests ‘mental countermeasures’ are not very effective. I guess I just take a skeptical approach to the research. If an examinee is reported NDI, How does the examiner ‘know for sure’ if he was not in fact defeated by a ‘mental’ countermeasure? I tend to subscribe to the notion that every examinee, both the truthful and the deceptive, will utilize a countermeasure ‘to some degree and form.’ We tell the examinee they must be ‘truthful’ to all questions being posed, including the comparative- while we presume the comparative is a ‘probable lie.’ I propose that the ‘truthful’ examinee may well engage in ‘countermeasure’ methods to the comparative question he feels is threatening. The ‘truthful’ examinee who thinks of ‘relaxing thoughts’ when presented with a comparative question, is he not using a countermeasure ‘in some degree’? The problem is (thanks to anti-polygraph sites) both the truthful and deceptive are applying countermeasure methods to comparative questions.

Lafayette is promoting a voice activated anti-countermeasure device, which purportedly is effective at detecting ‘mental and/or physical’ countermeasures. The software simply measures ‘the time differential’ it takes for the examinee to ‘verbally respond’ to a question being posed. The theory is based on ‘multi-tasking’ research stemming from cellular phone users and reaction times while driving. As I’ve commented in other threads, the downside is the software will generate a ‘report’ indicating whether or not a ‘countermeasure’ was used- but cannot specify as to ‘what question’ the countermeasure was being applied, relevant or comparison. Furthermore, as I understand it, there is a very small data base from which the decisions are based and very little meaningful research.

In reference to the Physical countermeasures, Activity Sensors are being improved within the Industry to detect ‘physical movements’ (be it anal sphincter- or arm/leg movements). Lafayette first used the ‘pneumatic air bags’ and are now moving towards piezo sensors. Eventually I see the piezo senors being able to localize the ‘source’ of the movement as well (ei right arm or left leg etc). All the current senors record changes in ‘pressure’ being applied, and any ‘change’ in pressure correlates to some kind of movement occurring. However, in the “pneumatic activity sensor system,” I’ve been able to ‘maintain pressure’ and yet ‘deliberately move by slowly rotating’ the limb with no significant ‘blatant’ recording change. Furthermore, the ‘mental’ concentration in using the ‘fine’ motor skill to effect the movement, impacted respiration changes as well.

Your question: “The current activity sensors are they good enough?”; My opinion, not yet- but I wouldn’t want to do a test without it. I’ve been using the pneumatic activity sensor since it’s first offering. Interestingly, I have not had one client that I could positively state was using a movement as a ‘specific state’ countermeasure to a specific question, be it comparative or relevant, based on the activity sensor alone. What I frequently see however is a more ‘generalized state’ of movement throughout the chart; the sensor ‘trend line’ moving upwards and then downwards or vice versa over time, and the ‘greater the rate and degree of change’, the greater the probability of intentional ‘generalized’ movement countermeasure.

However, I’ve also found the sensor ‘trend line’ can be dependant on the state of the examinee’s muscle relaxation at the beginning of and during ‘the chart’ and may or may not have anything to do with ‘a countermeasure’ to defeat the test. Meaning, if a ‘truthful’ examinee is ‘tense’ when he begins the test and begins to relax as the ‘chart rolls’, you will see a ‘trend change’ as well, the ‘trend line’ may go up or it may go down- but generally in one direction throughout the chart. Things are not that ‘simple’ though, for example a ‘deceptive’ examinee may, in an effort to distort his tracings, ‘tighten or loosen various muscles in his body (be it arms or legs) which will affect the ‘overall trend line’. I recall with one of my examinees I observed a ‘slow upward trend line’, and post chart I told him it was important to remain as still as possible: his reply was that he was doing the best he could to remain still- and because he was trying so hard to be still, it felt to him like his legs were ‘beginning to float.’ Was he attempting a ‘Physical countermeasure ?,’ or a ‘mental countermeasure’ by imagining he was ‘floating’? or was he really doing anything intentional at all ? I’m not so sure.

You asked: If we eliminate physical countermeasures with detection devices, have we eliminated all effective published c/measures? My response is: ‘A guarded Yes,’ but we have quite a ways to go yet. I believe we must be able to identify and unequivicably state the ‘exact’ source of the physical countermeasure and be able to refute ‘the clients explanation for such movement’ (no easy task in and of itself short of an admission). With more research/work on the physical activity sensors and in conjunction with more research/work on ‘response time differential’ to detect ‘mental countermeasures’, we would well be on our way.

Frankly- I would also like to see even more effort being placed in other ‘physiological recording sensors’ as well. For example, would a blood oxygenation sensor be of value in determining if the examinee is ‘controlling’ respiration via over/under ventilation? Technology being investigated currently, such as thermal imaging, pupil dilation, brain waves, etc- I think will be of value in detecting deception, but unforntunately cost prohibitive for the ‘average’ private examiner.

Sorry for the length- I get carried away sometimes sitting at a computer.

posted 09-10-2003 09:52 PM         

I am not sure I totally agree with the statement: “ ...all countermeasures have both a psychological as well as physical aspect to their implementation.”

I do agree with you that all ‘deliberate physical countermeasures’ requires a mental process attached to be able to perform the physical act, and therefore in essence has a mental ‘countermeasure’ psychological component.

For an examinee to apply any form of a ‘countermeasure,’ the examinee first has to ‘conciously- mentally decide’ to perform ‘something deliberately’; and the ‘doing of something deliberately’ I propose is an ACTIVE measure. Now that ‘something’ could be the performance of a deliberate physical act or a deliberate ‘mental disassociation’ from a test question by dwelling on ‘something else’ (be it relaxing thoughts, exciting thoughts, arithmatic, minimization, rationalization, fantasies of his latest girlfirend etc).

Ebvan, I suugest a ‘deliberate mental countermeasure’ however may not necessarily have a deliberate physical act ‘countermeaure’ component, but rather a PASSIVE and non-deliberate physiological outcome due to the emotional change while engaged in ACTIVE disassociation. I certainly don’t dispute the statement “Actors manufacture emotion on demand with practice,” but I propose they must first ‘deliberately mentally dwell’ on ‘some imagined event or recall of actual event’ to recall an ‘emotional feeling’ of ‘happiness, saddness, joy, fear etc’ which results in an associated physiological outcome. I suggest the Actor does not dwell on ‘deliberately showing tears’ and continues to repeat that to himself till he begins to cry and then feel grief stricken or deeply sadden, but rather dwells on an event which would render him grief stricken or deeply sadden ‘in hopes of’ producing a physiological outcome ‘tears’ (hence passive and non-deliberate).

Other examiners, I’m sure would agree an examinee who is ACTIVELY pursuing either a physical or mental countermeasure has formed the intent to alter the physiological recordings (masking true responses) in some manner.

Can we consider that a PASSIVE countermeasure occurs when the examinee has more of a ‘subconcious level of mental processing’ which also results in an emotional change and corresponding physiological change? For example, the ‘leakage’ in body language that occurs during deception that we all have seen at one time or another, such as ‘lack of eye contact’, or ‘picking of imaginary lint’ or inadvertent hand-face contact, etc.

If we can identify/control ALL ACTIVE countermeasures (both physical and mental) being employed, then I propose we will have “defeated all countermeasures.” The problem is identifying when the examinee is employing a ‘deliberate (hence Active) mental countermeasures.’

Ebvan you eluded to the best way of ‘confounding countermeasures’ “is to keep the subjects mind occupied by rotating comparioson questions and tossing in an irrelavant once in a while.” May I also add, I recall at a fairly recent seminar one of the presenters made the suggestion to utilize the examinee’s first name at the beginning of a test question. The rational being we are, in a since ‘programmed’, to orient to and respond when our name is used, therefore ‘momentarily breaking away’ from any ACTIVE mental disassociation which may be occuring. Also I would speculate if the examinee’s first name is used on both comparative and relevant questions, then the examinee will be hendered in identifying the question as comparative or relevant, with a resultant delay in applying a ‘deliberate’ countermeasure.

Bob

posted 09-11-2003 06:01 AM            

I just used the terms active and passive to differentiate the manner in which the physiological changes were initiated.

In reading your statement "Can we consider that a PASSIVE countermeasure occurs when the examinee has more of a ‘subconcious level of mental processing’ which also results in an emotional change and corresponding physiological change?"

I think that the only way this can occur in a polygraph setting is a failure to achieve proper psycological set. The cornerstone of the leakage theory is that the physical manifistations of the subconcious reveal the truth. I don't think that the truth can be a countermeasure when what we seek is the truth. In an interrogation, interview, or polygraph pre-test I feel I must focus or psychologically set the subject so that any kinesthetic leakage that occurs can be attributed to the issue at hand. A great many of the leakage cues that we look for in an interview are based in the physiological manifestation of the fight flight or freeze response.
One example would be the hand going to the face. I think that this is a response to the sensation created resulting from vasoconstricion of the small vessels in the face during F,F, or F. You can see that one from across the room. Bodyguards don't look for the red faced angry man, they key in on the unusual pallor greated by this phenomenon. If you are faced off in conflict with someone and their face goes white you better be prepared to swing or duck.(sorry street cop sneaks in once in awhile)

Overall I feel that we are just looking at the same elephant from slightly different angle. (like the 6 blind men from hindustan)

As for the detection of mental countermeasures, I have been shown several sets of charts which were confirmed as resulting from what I call passive countermeasure and from what you call a deliberate mental countermeasure. While I don't consider this definitive, there was a consistent "anticipatory" reaction in the cardio channel just prior to the start of the comparison question. The reaction was slightly different with different examinees, but since it only occurred on the comparison questions it may very well reflect mental preparation to implement the countermeasure. This would probably not be the case with someone practising dissociation, but if someone was using mental imagery like spiders, or falling it may be an accurate indicator.

Your idea of using someones name at the start of a question is interesting, but how would you argue that any reaction was not simply an orienting response to the sound of their name?

posted 09-11-2003 11:34 PM            

I don’t believe either of you are wrong on your assertions about countermeasures. I just thought I might add some quick interjects and ideas to ponder and discuss on this topic.

I have seen first hand confirmed mental countermeasures in both the field and laboratory and they do produce a physiological response. I believe the time line measurement is most likely one of the easier detection paths. Mental Countermeasures take a great deal of processing and implementation, even more so then physical.

The motion sensors are good for physical countermeasures. I know that they fall short of the high priced and cumbersome equipment used in physiological research but for the most part they do there job for what the majority of examiners need. I agree that there are more channels needed with the new sensor and I too have heard that is in the works. Because polygraph is small in industry size and relative practicing professionals, the amount of money for instrumentation development, software, research, etc. is limited as well.

Although it may be possible, I do not believe it is feasible to catalog physical countermeasures and their signatures. There are a great number of variables that would be involved with this and we are hard pressed to deal with those many variables present in normal physiological data collection in polygraph absent intentional thwarts.

I think that counter countermeasures and other deterrents are still and may always be good practice. I think we have all studied for a test and/or practiced/trained for an important event and when the time came froze. One who seeks to alter a test for the purpose of avoiding the detection of deception may just do the aforementioned when given some added and unforeseen information and/or procedures. A truthful person may decide to forgo the pre-game plans and instead chose to insure they do everything to co-operate with you and your instructions to get accurate results.

We need to focus on a catholic scientifically sound theory of polygraph that can be proven both reliable and valid. I believe that the wake of countermeasures has distracted us from that which has plagued us for quite some time in scientific acceptance.

posted 09-11-2003 11:47 PM         

Its nice conversing with you too, and yes we are looking at the same elephant from a just slightly different angle (although I sometimes wish the animal would stop moving).

No disagreement here with you at all in that “by definition all countermeasures have to be deliberate,... and therefore if you don't have the mental/psychological aspect, ie. intent; you don't have a countermeasure.”

Where we may differ slightly is in the statement “all countermeasures have both a psychological as well as physical aspect to their implementation” I was attempting to suggest “all countermeasures have a ‘psychological aspect’ but not necessarily a ‘physical aspect.’ Now I’m sure we’re just walking around the same bush, it’s just that I am not equating a “physical aspect” as being the same and having the same meaning as “physiological aspect,” but rather the ‘physiological aspect’ is a result of the ‘physical aspect’ and are two different things. Whereas I was projecting a definition to your words ‘physical aspect’ to mean a ‘an act, a behavior;’ and we agree that ‘behavior’ can be ‘voluntary- hence with deliberate mental contribution and conscious awareness’ with resultant physiological change. As you have already noted, the physiological change encompasses the ‘anticipation or contemplation (mental awareness) of performing ‘the act or behavior’ as well as continued physiological change during ‘the act or behavior’ itself. If the examinee introduces a ‘voluntary physical aspect with mental intent to distort true data recordings ,’ then we agree we have an Active countermeasure, and your statement of a mental-physical aspect applies. Therefore supporting our observations of an "anticipatory" reaction in the cardio channel (I might even add EDA).

Here again I don’t think we are in any kind of disagreement, I was separating “mental / physical (behavior)aspect" from ‘Mental’ alone; meaning one can apply a “mental countermeasure” without a physical aspect (behavior) occurring but with a resultant physiological change.

No doubt all of us examiners would be in agreement if we say “all countermeasures have a ‘psychological aspect and a physiological aspect.”

Ebvan you mentioned “Simply put, If intent does not exist AND the data is not altered in some way then it's not a countermeasure.” Whereas I might say ‘If intent does not exist then it is not a countermeasure, regardless if the data is altered (artifact).”

You were saying you were differentiating between an Active and Passive countermeasure as being the Manner in which the physiological changes were initiated; Active countermeasure (ei physical pain/ I’ll add or deodorant use) and a Passive countermeasure (all forms of mental disassociation); whereas I view them both as being ACTIVE countermeasures, primarily because the examinee ‘chooses’ to mentally dwell on ‘something.’

Now, if I consider them both an Active countermeasure, then what would I consider as a Passive countermeasure? I thought well, what if an examinee has more of a ‘subconscious level of mental processing’ which also results in a corresponding physiological change; and suggested as an example possibly the ‘leakage’ in body language that occurs during deception. We agree that many of the leakage cues that we look for in an interview are based in the physiological manifestation of the fight flight or freeze response. (Just another way of looking at it: increased anxiety= increased body metabolism, and the examinee is dissipating the energy build-up.) I propose that the examinee who ‘picks lint, hand- face movements, or just increased toe tapping etc’- is not doing so at a ‘deliberate conscious level to avoid detection’ but more of a ‘subconscious-unawareness level’ and therefore I was thinking Passive.

You mentioned Ebvan you thought the only way this Passive countermeasure can occur in a polygraph setting is a failure to achieve proper psychological set. I tend to agree, but- and this is definitely not mainstream, just rambling and thinking out loud- We know ANS F/F/F response says bronchioles dilate to provide better oxygenation of the blood for muscular use and with a corresponding overall increase in body metabolism, which therefore predicts there should be an increase in respiratory volume or rate. Just, exactly, why is it we see ‘suppression’ or a slowing of respiratory rate ? To really get out of the mainstream river- Can the respiratory suppression be a “passive countermeasure’ being performed at a ‘subconscious and unawareness level’ and through the establishment of psychological set- we want and invite the examinee to engage in a Passive countermeasure as well?

The use of an examinee’s name at the beginning of a question was not my idea- I was just repeating what I heard at a seminar lecture. I too was wondering ‘how would you argue that any reaction was not simply an orienting response to the sound of their name?’ Now to back peddle some, if the examinee’s first name was only used on the compa