posted 03-01-2009 10:56 AM            

I actually tried sending it to the email address he posted, twice, and it bounced both times. I went to his profile and copied the email address from there and sent it. I never received a reply, perhaps he does not check that address. More likely, he was less than impressed with the article.

posted 03-04-2009 08:44 PM            

I've been away for a few days. It's not nice to take the "funny" out of my jokes with factual information.

posted 03-05-2009 07:53 AM            

Preacher, I too heard back from him from that email so maybe it bounced just so you could tease me, though those who know me are well aware that I leave myself wide open for poking fun at.

posted 03-05-2009 03:04 PM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 03-06-2009 04:53 PM            

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 10-03-2009 04:36 AM            

Can I use Utah scoring system for the test with two questions?

For example:
multi-issue
I1-SR-C1-R1-R2-C2
or
I1-SR-I2-C1-R1-I3-C2-R2
or
single-issue
I1-SR-C1-R1-C2-R1-C3
or
I-SR-I1-C1-R1-I2-C2-R1

Must I use also for this test grand total +-6 or may be +-4 (with ignoring spot scores of zero, when other question "+" or "-" for multi-issue tests)?

Thanks.

posted 11-14-2010 07:04 PM            

The example is from here http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action =displayprivate&number=11&topic=000807

1. Prior to C2 and during the first seconds of C2 there is abnormal amlitude of pulses for this chart. We have the large reduction in the amplitude of finger pulses due to this abnormal initial value of amplitude. Can we use for scoring such question as C2 in this case (PLE channel)?
2. Let`s imagine that there are such amplitudes of finger pulses prior to all qustions and during the first seconds of all qustions beside R2. In this case such amplitudes will be normal (homeostasis). But prior to R2 we have no homeostasis and because of that the reduction in the amplitude of finger pulses can`t be so large as in the cases of other questions. Can we use for scoring such question as R2 in this case (PLE channel)?

Thanks.

posted 11-15-2010 12:03 PM            

As far as the example goes, I'm missing something - I think. You can score both CQs. The test is working just as it's designed. The theory goes as follows: Neutral allows the examinee to reach baseline before the CQ is presented. When the CQ is presented, the examinee should have a finger full of blood allowing a good response. When the RQ is presented, the initial value of blood volume should be lower, allowing less of a response, which is what you see here. Then, the cycle continues.

The purpose, according to the developers, is to make the test more fair to the truthful. We know that truthful people don't react to the CQs as strongly as liars react to the RQs, so the "fix" is to build in a bias (there are others) in the test to even the playing field a little.

It's easier (for me) to understand this when talking about the cardio channel. Let's say a person's resting BP is 90 (pretend that's right). Let's say his maximum is about 150. If you ask a question when it's 90, then he has more room to move, so to speak. So, we ask the CQ when he's at 90, and bam, it shoots up to 145. It only returns to 120 (21 seconds later) when you ask the RQ. Thus, there's less room to go (since 150 is about the limit).

posted 11-15-2010 01:55 PM            

Figure 2

Figure 3

It seems to me that it must be more reasonable sometimes not to use for scoring the questions without homeostasis before question onset.

posted 11-15-2010 03:39 PM            

Wouldn't the Fed ZCT be nice if it had an irrelevent question right after 5 and before 6? The eight question probably serves the same purpose prior to 9 and 10.

posted 11-16-2010 04:53 AM            

1. Figure 4
Is there large supression and response at R2? Or there is a simple return to homeostasis? Would you use R2 for scoring in this case? How do you score this spot?

2. Figure 5
Would you use C2 for scoring in this case? How do you score R2 spot?

posted 11-16-2010 09:08 AM            

Picking a single data point isn't going to help you make sense of this. The algorithms measure line length, and sure there will be times when the computer will score the opposite of what you would; however, on average, the algorithm is going to beat an examiner.

posted 11-16-2010 01:07 PM            

I will also point out that we polygraph examiners have a tendency to mis-use the word and the construct of homeostasis. When we say homeostasis we usually seem to be referring to the baseline or normal tonic level. It makes us sound kind of silly - like we haven't studied our own physiology text books.

Homeostasis is a complex system of adaptive responses so that the organism does not die or begin to die when present with a stress or challenge. We neglect the fact that an increase in blood pressure, or an increase in EDA response is an attempt (allostatic change) in anticipation of a perceived stress or challenge) to maintain homeostasis and survival in response to some situation or perceived circumstances.

We talk as if blood pressure or other reactions going up are not homeostatic and BP or other response data coming down is homeostatic. In fact, they are both an attempt to maintain homeostasis and survival - so the organism does not become overwhelmed and die from the situation.

If we mean to describe a return to the normal or stable tonic level then we should simply say "return to the normal tonic level." Misusing well defined medical, psychological, and physiological terms does not make us smarter.

As always,

just my .02

r

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

posted 11-16-2010 09:37 PM            

As far as I know you are right about slowing being parasympathetic.

But what really matters to us is whether and how the features is correlated with the criterion of truthfulness or deception.

The fact seems to be that it is.

I am not an expert on the Federal standards and know only what I read and hear. Slowing is not included in the 2006 Federal Examiners Handbook at antipolygraph.org (now also at the APA website). But Don Krapohl's material on the Defensible Dozen valid features does include slowing - if I recall correctly.

I would guess that Don's material is based on a review of the literature, while the Federal Material is partially based on the literature and partially based on a consensus of experts and administrators who have to decide on what criteria to endorse as the standard.

As you know, the SOP will be built around what can be reliably achieved by most people under most circumstances. Slowing of pulse is, in my view, difficult for most of us to see, measure or utilize consistently in field settings. As I recall, it is valid, but requires rather precise measurements that are not consistent with field-pragmatics such as scoring visually on-screen as in the ESS.

So, valid or not, slowing of pulse rate may not be all that usable in manual scoring models.

This is the same issue as RLL. It is valid and probably the best way to measure pneumograph data. But because humans are so bad at visually measuring squiggly lines - we hardly use it when scoring manually. Either the The Federal TDA Handbook from 2006 or the Federal Examiner's Handbook from 2006 includes a description of a procedure for using RLL when manually scoring - but it is so complicated that I cannot ever remember it. I kind of doubt that many others can actually remember the procedure either. So, it is probably like all the info from our statistics courses - we remember it long enough to pass a test and then forget everything we can't actually use. I believe most of us use RLL primarily when using an algorithm. Humans are much better at pattern recognition. So, the ESS forgoes the use of RLL measurements, in favor of a simplified pattern recognition approach.

r

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

posted 11-17-2010 01:43 AM            

2. Barry C, thanks. At figure 4 I would score R2 with plus. At figure 5 I would not use C2 for scoring because I`m not sure the responce is related with the stimulus. A responce is related with a stimulus when there is a supression and RLL becomes shorter after stimulus onset.

3. I didn`t hear that Utah manual scoring procedure uses RLL (Bell..., 1999).

posted 11-17-2010 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

1. RNelson, good cents about homeostasis. I use it for the best understanding by anyone, from DoDPI Numerical Evaluation Scoring System 2006. For example: "This occurs when the waveform returns to homeostasis during the
response onset window with subsequent response or remains in homeostasis beyond the ROW."

---

Doing something just because everyone else is doing it is not exactly smart - especially when they are misusing the physiological lexicon.

In fact, it brings us back to that problems of agnotology - in which we continue to teach and learn things that are incorrect.

If we are going to play follow the leader (a game for children), then we should at least ask that the leaders get it right. Otherwise we would all be just a bunch of lemmings or horde of brainless zombies who cannot think for ourselves. We would be xperts only at using a checklist and regurgitating the incorrect things that we were led to repeat.

It think it is time to advance the science a little bit. That means we have to be committed to the correct ideas. How do we know which ideas are correct? 1) Challenge any opinion without evidence (untested hypothesis), and insist on a professional lexicon that is consistent with our related fields of science, and 2) do not limit our professional intelligence to our hyperbole.

As always,

.02

r

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

posted 11-17-2010 08:23 AM            

quote:

---

3. I didn`t hear that Utah manual scoring procedure uses RLL (Bell..., 1999).

---

Well, it does because the features described in Bell et al all can be measured using RLL (except a temporary baseline increase). We know, however, that measuring RLL for the first 10 seconds is optimal, which is why the Stoelting software only highlights and measures the first 10 seconds of RLL to assist the hand-scorer in assigning hand-scores.

I've done some "computer simulating" of handscoring (using ESS ratios of 1.1 to 1), and I measured pretty much as CPS does. It worked very well (over 90% accuracy). While I didn't compare it to actual hand-scorers, what could be used for "computer assisted" scoring seems to outperform or perform as least as well as the average accuracies we see in other hand-scoring studies.

posted 12-27-2010 03:23 AM            

quote:

---

Well, it does because the features described in Bell et al all can be measured using RLL

---

quote:

---

using ESS ratios of 1.1 to 1

---

Are there validated ratios (RLL) for assigning different scores (...-1, 0, 1, 2, 3) with Utah and ESS scoring rules?

posted 12-28-2010 11:30 AM            

quote:

---

Are there validated ratios (RLL) for assigning different scores (...-1, 0, 1, 2, 3) with Utah and ESS scoring rules?

---

No.

Utah and ESS use pattern recognition to assign manual scores to the pneumo data.

BTW, ESS features are based on the work of the smart people from Utah.

Also, I don't actually speak for the Utah scientists. But I think you will hear the same thing from them.

Keep in mind that the use of ratios and parametric math require that we make underlying assumptions about the linearity and parametric shape of the data. At some point we will have to PROVE or DISPROVE those assumptions. Fortunately there is already a lot of evidence that physiological responses and neuropsychological perceptions are not normally distributed or linear. So, we are unlikely to ever prove it.

The correct thing to do would be to abandon our parametric assumptions - because doing so makes our lives easier and our work MORE VALID. There is nothing wrong with proceeding with nonparametric assumptions, and a lot to gain from doing so. For example: we no longer have to prove our parametric assumptions, and we no longer have to worry about the scale of measurement or linearity of the instruments. The Lafayette system, for example, has a very linear EDA with accurate resistance measurements across the spectrum. However, there is no normative range of EDA values for truthful or deceptive persons, and all kinds of cultural and sub-cultural differenced in response levels (e.g., EDA from manual laborers in cement contracting in Colorado may have different mean resistance levels compared to accountants in Florida who use hand moisturizer daily.

Bottom line: ratios are a nice idea, but will ultimately dead end in our efforts to fully validate the underlying scientific constructs and assumptions.

Non-parametric models are simple, easily validated, and can still produce result data that conform to parametric decision models such ans OSS-3 and ESS.

Al always,

.02

Happy New Year everyone.

r

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

posted 12-28-2010 07:50 PM            

I didn't know that there were any smart people in Utah (except for maybe that Taylor woman).

Happy New Year everyone!

posted 12-29-2010 06:05 PM            

You are absolutely right.

ESS is based in large part on the work of all you Utah people.

It is also based on the work of other important researchers.

A lot of smart people, at different times, and in different places, took the time to study, learn about and find solutions to different pieces of the puzzle.

Beginning even with Backster, who suggested the use of positive and negative integers when evaluating the relevant and comparison stimuli.

Van Herk (Canadian I think) first described a 3 position version of the 7-position model.

Stu Senter worked on decision rules.

Krapohl suggested the nifty idea of doubling the EDA (OSS) and optimizing the cutscores.

And Barland described the gaussian gaussian model for polygraph decisions.

There are others as well.

Beautiful thing about science - it is for everyone.

We just put the pieces together, and did some fancy math to validate it.

We are just standing on the shoulders of the giants who were here first and started the daunting task of making something out of nothing and them making order out of chaos.

Peace,

r

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

posted 12-29-2010 08:49 PM            

Ray,

Just in case you didn't notice, the above sentence is a quote from your previous post. I would never write or say anything like that, since I continue to believe that the Taylor woman has cornered the Utah brain market.