|
Author
|
Topic: Interesting article on lie detection
|
ckieso
Member
|
posted 07-12-2010 09:02 AM
  
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/50604-lie-detector-works-by-targeting-people-with-shifty-eyes&ct=ga&cad=:s7:f2:v0:i2:lt:e2:p1:t127 8926266:&cd=ZTyZh30s_Hc&usg=AFQjCNHKmAcxXjSQcQWFwzEWw9kk0FTXog------------------
"Truth Seekers"
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 07-12-2010 09:43 AM
Yeah, about every 1-2 years, some research project conducted, and usually in some manner supportive of a private, for-profit organization, announces they have discovered the "Fountain of Truth!" Is it better than the 100% accuracy of CVSA...? I don't think so... Jim IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 07-13-2010 01:08 PM
If Dr. John Kircher is involved in this new methodology I'd put some stock in it. He's done a lot of good research on polygraph and credibility assessment.IP: Logged |
ckieso
Member
|
posted 07-13-2010 09:03 PM
I believe he is listed in the article as one of the researchers. IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 07-14-2010 07:31 AM
Andrea K. Webb22 , Douglas J. Hacker22, Dahvyn Osher22, Anne E. Cook22, Dan J. Woltz22, Sean Kristjansson23 and John C. Kircher22(22) University of Utah, 1705 E. Campus Center Dr. Rm 327, Salt Lake City, UT 84112,
(23) Washington University, St. Louis, MO, Abstract
An oculomotor test is described that uses pupil diameter and eye movements during reading to detect deception. Forty participants read and responded to statements on a computerized questionnaire about their possible involvement in one of two mock crimes. Twenty guilty participants committed one of two mock crimes, and 20 innocent participants committed no crime. Guilty participants demonstrated speeded and accurate reading when they encountered statements about their crime and increases in pupil size. A discriminant function of oculomotor measures successfully discriminated between guilty and innocent participants and between the two groups of guilty participants. Results suggest that oculomotor tests may be of value for pre-employment and security screening applications.
Keywords Oculomotor measures - pupil size - deception
IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 07-15-2010 10:34 AM
Note the source of the funding. There is significant interest in developing technologies other than polygraph.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/appropriations/hs/FY'11%20Credibility%20Assessment%20Technologies.pdf PROJECT NAME: Oculomotor Deception Detection Research, Development and Field Testing RECIPIENT: Credibility Assessment Technologies, LLC LOCATION: Salt Lake City, Utah PURPOSE: Credibility Assessment Technology has developed an innovative, inexpensive, rapidly-administered and accurate deception detection technology for employment in pre-screening applicants for sensitive government positions. In addition, this technology can be used for screening foreign nationals applying for U.S. visas. The new lie detection test uses a remote, state-of-the-art eye-tracking device to take precise measurements of pupil dilation and eye movement, called oculomotor measurements. These measurements are then recorded while subject is taking a computer-administered reading test which solicits yes or no answers. These answers are then evaluated using an algorithm developed by the project’s lead inventor, Professor John C. Kircher. Professor Kircher currently works under grant on polygraph improvement for several government agencies. For a small investment in expanded research and field testing, this technology could significantly reduce costs of evaluating applications while expanding the use of deception screening into applications where it has heretofore been too expensive to employ. AMOUNT: $4,100,000 IP: Logged |
ckieso
Member
|
posted 07-15-2010 11:09 AM
Should we feel threatened by this "new technology?" In other words, will this new technology replace polygraph?IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 07-15-2010 12:45 PM
It is important to note that since the National Academy of Science (2003) report, there has been a substantial shift in addressing credibility assessment as a whole, which has included a substantial focus on developing other credibility assessment technologies, techniques, and methodologies. This shift can be noted by reviewing several research reviews, including University of Maryland’s Center for the Advanced Study of Language (2004), National Science Foundation and the Office of Science Technology and Policy (2006) and the Credibility Assessment Research Summit (2010). Further, you can note that there is no longer a Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Rather, it is now named the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, which is congruent with the overall atmosphere. I do not believe we should be threatened, per se. However, we should not be naive, as there is substantial funding and interest in research related to other forms of credibility assessment and the possibility exists that this research will lead to the identification of other technologies, techniques and methodologies that are more cost effective, less invasive, etc. that may be used in coordination with polygraph or to replace polygraph. Therefore, we need to embrace those recommendations made regarding polygraph in order to continue the progression of our own profession.
IP: Logged |
rcgilford
Member
|
posted 07-16-2010 10:34 AM
With respect to pre-employment testing, which appears to be where this technology is directed, I’m in favor of improved and better technology, but the whole successful process of polygraph, or even measuring the size of the pupil, to determine deception, rest in soliciting information during the entire “interview” process. That will involve a pre-test interview wherein admissions, if there are any, will hopefully be obtained. Even if this new technology is better (and if it is, fine), I don’t think you want to sacrifice the need for a proper pre-test for speed in testing. If the suggestion is that this will be faster and more economical and test results are final, without admissions, it is, in my view, a mistake. You are still going to need that rapport building and proper interviewing, which takes time. My belief is that in a pre-employment environment you interview, get admissions, and then test. And in a specific issue (criminal test), you test without confrontation (unless you’re confident of a confession/admission), and then attempt to get admissions/confession if you have deceptive results. I don't feel threatened by new technology...I welcome it.
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 07-16-2010 04:14 PM
Skip,I do not challenge any research without reading it, though I do note that the reasearch reported here is limited (p=40). My skepticism is focused more on the following tidbits of promotional verbiage: "A research project." "licensed the technology to Credibility Assessment Technologies (CAT)" "method for detecting lies has great potential" "CAT chairman" ...says, "...we believe we are addressing that need by licensing the extraordinary research done at the University of Utah." "Unlike the polygraph..." "These reactions...require sophisticated measurement and statistical modeling to determine their significance." "They are as good as or better than the polygraph... "It promises to cost substantially less and require one-fifth of the time currently needed for examinations, and can be administered by technicians rather than qualified polygraph examiners." "..our testing method is going to be taken from a basic research program to commercial use." I agree with Robert. I'm not against anything that would improve our abilities. I just don't like the manner and language used to report and promote it. CVSA said the exact same things and see where that took us. If Dr Kircher is working on polygraph research, why not combine it with polygraph to improve accuracy and validity...? Maybe, back to an R and I format with eye scanning technology. I'm for any new mouse trap; if, it is for the betterment of our profession.
Jim
[This message has been edited by sackett (edited 07-16-2010).] IP: Logged |
Mad Dog
Member
|
posted 08-26-2010 10:04 AM
http://www.continuum.utah.edu/spring06/lying.htm Here is a link to what Dr. Raskin will be previewing at APA. Essentially it combines task evoked pupil response, dwell time and eye movement to predict deception. Dr. Webb did her dissertation in this area and she is an excellent statistician and researcher. She was trained by John Kircher. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
