- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Oct 05, 2014, 10:58 PM1st4th5thand6th, I concede that polygraph is, in a very practical sense, more religion than it is science.
That said, according to the catechism of the polygraph church (so to speak), there are indeed "patterns."
Funny thing is, certain patterns appear (and apply) more often than not in specific-issue testing, meaning the test actually "works" -- although ther error rate is huge, generally speaking.
The polygraph indu$trialists and apologists, who vehemently disagree with me about the "huge" error rate, would contend that the mere fact that specific-issue testing "works" more often than not therefore means polygraph is, after a fashion, scientifically reliable.
I prefer to think of polygraph more as a "faith-based science" -- an oxymoron, I know. But it seems to fit.
As for true scientific scrutiny, who needs it when you have more than enough believers to go around?
Here's a fun fact: Polygraph use is growing not just in the USA, but world wide.
It's unbelievable.
And the USA is "exporting" polygraph at heretofore unseen levels, from what I've seen.
Why the solid growth?
There are three reasons, IMHO. They are:
1. Polygraph is a moneymaking enterpri$e (on many levels)
2. People want to believe in polygraph
3. Polygraph has undeniable utility.
Of course, all of the above is just the opinion of a lowly polygraph operator. Others will disagree.
That said, according to the catechism of the polygraph church (so to speak), there are indeed "patterns."
Funny thing is, certain patterns appear (and apply) more often than not in specific-issue testing, meaning the test actually "works" -- although ther error rate is huge, generally speaking.
The polygraph indu$trialists and apologists, who vehemently disagree with me about the "huge" error rate, would contend that the mere fact that specific-issue testing "works" more often than not therefore means polygraph is, after a fashion, scientifically reliable.
I prefer to think of polygraph more as a "faith-based science" -- an oxymoron, I know. But it seems to fit.
As for true scientific scrutiny, who needs it when you have more than enough believers to go around?
Here's a fun fact: Polygraph use is growing not just in the USA, but world wide.
It's unbelievable.
And the USA is "exporting" polygraph at heretofore unseen levels, from what I've seen.
Why the solid growth?
There are three reasons, IMHO. They are:
1. Polygraph is a moneymaking enterpri$e (on many levels)
2. People want to believe in polygraph
3. Polygraph has undeniable utility.
Of course, all of the above is just the opinion of a lowly polygraph operator. Others will disagree.
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Oct 04, 2014, 07:26 AMQuote
The point is that deception in humans is not correlated in any systematic way with any of the physiological indices recorded by the polygraph.
Quote
True, the box is often used as a prop, but not so, generally speaking, in specific-issue testing. The box measures and records physiological feedback from the test taker. Patterns are analyzed and a result is usually rendered.
.
Dan,
You and the APA know full well that there is no systemic way to map your "patterns" to any human deception ... Therefore your comment above is totally bogus...
You keep trying to somehow wordsmith validity into what you do....
Further you go on to say...
Quote
Incident-specific testing, also known as specific-issue testing, indeed works. Exactly how well it works is unknown....
This is pure wordsmith Dan.... You claim it works,but you can't tell us exactly how well..... ? So how do you know at all? based on what scientific scrutiny?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 27, 2014, 11:21 AM1st4th5thand6th, I deliberately chose the 55% figure as a minimum threshold example of "more likely than not." I agree that it's not much better than a coin flip, but, in the extreme, it has value for gross culling and screening purposes.
True, the box is often used as a prop, but not so, generally speaking, in specific-issue testing. The box measures and records physiological feedback from the test taker. Patterns are analyzed and a result is usually rendered.
I do not manipulate clients, but many examiners -- perhaps most -- do exactly that. And while I would never stop mid-stream to show a test taker the differences in their reactions vis-a-vis RQs and CQs, I often do just that after the test.
My testing model is "open book." Days prior to the test, I advise the client of the risks, realities and limitations of the test. My web site has a page designated "Recommended Reading," which provides a broad spectrum of opinions (pro and con) about polygraph. Yes, it contains a link to this very site.
Why do I do that? Simple. By thusly informing the potential client, it is the consumer who decides if there's what is known as a "value proposition" -- in business terms -- to be derived from their participation in the polygraph process. I take myself out of that loop.
I would be happy to demonstrate the machinations of polygraph testing to you at no charge. Should you find yourself in the New England area sometime, call me and we'll set up an appointment. You can participate in a mock crime exercise, after which you would be polygraphed on a particular aspect of that crime.
Based on my experience, if you actually committed the mock crime, there is about a 95% chance you would be detected. If you did not do the deed (such as taking money), there is a roughly 85% chance you will be found truthful.
Again, there is no manipulation in my tests. I've been doing open-book polygraph testing for a while now. Again, I tell the client the "truth about the test" (your phrase) in advance of the appointment and encourage them to explore the links found on the Recommended Reading page of my web site. Immediately prior to the test, I review CQT theory and even identify the RQs and the CQs.
While such an approach makes many of my polygraph colleagues almost apoplectic, providing all of that allegedly sensitive information to the examinee doesn't seem to matter much.
The guilty are usually found deceptive and the innocent are usually found truthful.
All of that said, you are absolutely right about the lack of any central controlling authority. Unfortunately, polygraph abuse and victimization occurs far too often. Therefore, the key to consumer protection is consumer education.
That's why I have proposed a "bill of rights" for polygraph test subjects. Such a measure would sharply curtail the abuses that plague the polygraph industry. The polygraph establishment, however, wants little to do with a bill of rights for the person who's in the hot seat. In my opinion, that's wholly unethical, and another glaring blemish on an industry with a very sketchy reputation.
True, the box is often used as a prop, but not so, generally speaking, in specific-issue testing. The box measures and records physiological feedback from the test taker. Patterns are analyzed and a result is usually rendered.
I do not manipulate clients, but many examiners -- perhaps most -- do exactly that. And while I would never stop mid-stream to show a test taker the differences in their reactions vis-a-vis RQs and CQs, I often do just that after the test.
My testing model is "open book." Days prior to the test, I advise the client of the risks, realities and limitations of the test. My web site has a page designated "Recommended Reading," which provides a broad spectrum of opinions (pro and con) about polygraph. Yes, it contains a link to this very site.
Why do I do that? Simple. By thusly informing the potential client, it is the consumer who decides if there's what is known as a "value proposition" -- in business terms -- to be derived from their participation in the polygraph process. I take myself out of that loop.
I would be happy to demonstrate the machinations of polygraph testing to you at no charge. Should you find yourself in the New England area sometime, call me and we'll set up an appointment. You can participate in a mock crime exercise, after which you would be polygraphed on a particular aspect of that crime.
Based on my experience, if you actually committed the mock crime, there is about a 95% chance you would be detected. If you did not do the deed (such as taking money), there is a roughly 85% chance you will be found truthful.
Again, there is no manipulation in my tests. I've been doing open-book polygraph testing for a while now. Again, I tell the client the "truth about the test" (your phrase) in advance of the appointment and encourage them to explore the links found on the Recommended Reading page of my web site. Immediately prior to the test, I review CQT theory and even identify the RQs and the CQs.
While such an approach makes many of my polygraph colleagues almost apoplectic, providing all of that allegedly sensitive information to the examinee doesn't seem to matter much.
The guilty are usually found deceptive and the innocent are usually found truthful.
All of that said, you are absolutely right about the lack of any central controlling authority. Unfortunately, polygraph abuse and victimization occurs far too often. Therefore, the key to consumer protection is consumer education.
That's why I have proposed a "bill of rights" for polygraph test subjects. Such a measure would sharply curtail the abuses that plague the polygraph industry. The polygraph establishment, however, wants little to do with a bill of rights for the person who's in the hot seat. In my opinion, that's wholly unethical, and another glaring blemish on an industry with a very sketchy reputation.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 27, 2014, 09:44 AMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 26, 2014, 12:33 PMGeorge, the NAS report is over ten years old. Perhaps it's time for Dr. Zelicoff to acquaint himself with the latest research from the American Polygraph Association, available here:
http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research
Dan,
Polygraphy has not advanced in any significant way since the NAS report was published.
What specific peer-reviewed field studies do you think Dr. Zelicoff should acquaint himself with? (Stuff published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, doesn't count.)
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Sep 27, 2014, 09:27 AMQuote
Even if incident-specific testing is only 55% accurate, it still has value. The degree of value depends, in large part, on what is trying to be accomplished with a polygraph.
Sir if it's 55% accurate...you're a hair above a coin toss... you want this country to spend millions for 55%??? we can go flip a quarter for free....
Quote
I tell my clients -- all of whom are fully warned about the risks, realitites and limitations of the "test" -- that any polygraph result, which is far below a reasonable doubt, should be used as a rough guide.
Also, there is no manipulation in my tests. That's not my style. I simply run the exam and then render my opinion. Post-test interrogation is not a part of my practice, generally speaking. After my prospective clients consider polygraph's plusses and pitfallls, I leave it up to them to determine to what extent a value proposition exists in the process.
Dan,, what do you mean no manipulation? You turn the box on don't you?
and you know the box is nothing more than a prop. So how can you say you're not manipulating them?
Further, you're not going to turn that box on to anyone who knows that it's a farce... what would be the point?. you'll hook him/her up... start asking questions, the polygraph wiggles you might say (hypothetically of course): "Ms so-and-so you've had a reaction to this 'crime' question - you wanna explain that? Ms so-and-so can look at you and say... Sir, "there is no systemic way to map my physiological reactions to any particular emotion". "your wiggles mean nothing and you know it". What do you say then? I'll bet most will claim the person is lying or accuse them of hiding something and go on the verbal, psychological assault under that assumption.. For what? The person made a truthful statement because she knows your conning them... the whole thing falls apart....
Also, how could anyone who knows the con...even believe a polygrapher who says something to the effect of "you're reacting to this question more than the others?"
Does the polygrapher stop and show the different charts to the person?
I'll bet the answer to that is NO!
But Even if they did, so what?... the chart means nothing because it too is just a prop an attempt to get the candidate to believe something that is not TRUE...
This scenario and any variation of it is TOTAL MANIPULATION....
How can you possibly say otherwise?
So by virtue of turning on the box you are manipulating them.
Further, by deliberately refusing to test anyone who knows the truth about the polygraph you taint the sample set and thus the result set.
Upon "finding out" that the person has read the books, visited the sites. you automatically conclude that these are dishonest, cheaters..and most likely act vigorously on that false assumption. That person will end up in the reject bin....and your organization will claim if found a cheater!!!
So if you even hook them up you're automatically biased.... . if she breathes, you suspect CMs. Face it, Polygraphers are totally biased in giving this test - which automatically renders it a manipulated sample set
There is no legitimate 3rd party "organization". or accounting group, or organization that performs statistical quality analysis for anything that will bless a result from a biased manipulated and then further pass it off as expert analysis.
with the sole EXCEPTION being your profession...
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 26, 2014, 12:33 PMGeorge, the NAS report is over ten years old. Perhaps it's time for Dr. Zelicoff to acquaint himself with the latest research from the American Polygraph Association, available here:
http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research
http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 26, 2014, 11:40 AMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 26, 2014, 11:05 AMIncident-specific testing, also known as specific-issue testing, indeed works. Exactly how well it works is unknown. NAS cozily described incident-specific testing accuracy as, and I'm paraphrasing, "significantly above chance, but well below perfection."
What does that translate to? Good question. It would be easy to cite a reasonable mid-point, say, 70%. The American Polygraph Association has research that suggests such testing is about 87% accurate.
Dan,
I would take issue with any characterization of the NAS report as endorsing the accuracy of polygraphy. The passage you paraphrased is from p. 214 of the NAS report. Here it is in its full context:
QuoteNotwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.
Note the caveat, which I've highlighted above. Moreover, polygraphy hasn't been shown through peer-reviewed research to reliably perform at better-than-chance levels under field conditions (that is, in the real world, as opposed to the laboratory).
Indeed, a statistical analysis by Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff of the best available field studies suggests that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data."
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 26, 2014, 11:05 AM1st4th5thand6th, wait just a minute. You're dismissing all polygraphy as a sham. It is not.
Incident-specific testing, also known as specific-issue testing, indeed works. Exactly how well it works is unknown. NAS cozily described incident-specific testing accuracy as, and I'm paraphrasing, "significantly above chance, but well below perfection."
What does that translate to? Good question. It would be easy to cite a reasonable mid-point, say, 70%. The American Polygraph Association has research that suggests such testing is about 87% accurate.
A major problem is the quality of the studies, with which NAS was decidedly underwhelmed. Of course, countermeasures are a wild card. We need more research into CMs, hence my call for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series.
Even if incident-specific testing is only 55% accurate, it still has value. The degree of value depends, in large part, on what is trying to be accomplished with a polygraph.
I tell my clients -- all of whom are fully warned about the risks, realitites and limitations of the "test" -- that any polygraph result, which is far below a reasonable doubt, should be used as a rough guide.
Also, there is no manipulation in my tests. That's not my style. I simply run the exam and then render my opinion. Post-test interrogation is not a part of my practice, generally speaking. After my prospective clients consider polygraph's plusses and pitfallls, I leave it up to them to determine to what extent a value proposition exists in the process.
FYI, polygraph testing is sometimes used behind the scenes in both criminal and civil cases, thus some reputable attorneys do request polygraph exams from time to time. As far as the courts go, it will be a cold day in hell before polygraph "evidence" finds its way into the courts of my region, which is New England. Other states are different.
Let's visit utility for a moment... The polygraph is a great tool for developing information, especially in LEPET and PCSOT scenarios. Pre-test admissions, which, contrary to popular opinion, often happen spontaneously and with no coercion, are a great aid in furthering the risk assessment process.
Many of my polygraph peers think I'm anti-polygraph. I am not. I am, however, pro-polygraph reality. That makes many of the polygraph establishment types uneasy, for obvious reasons.
Incident-specific testing, also known as specific-issue testing, indeed works. Exactly how well it works is unknown. NAS cozily described incident-specific testing accuracy as, and I'm paraphrasing, "significantly above chance, but well below perfection."
What does that translate to? Good question. It would be easy to cite a reasonable mid-point, say, 70%. The American Polygraph Association has research that suggests such testing is about 87% accurate.
A major problem is the quality of the studies, with which NAS was decidedly underwhelmed. Of course, countermeasures are a wild card. We need more research into CMs, hence my call for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series.
Even if incident-specific testing is only 55% accurate, it still has value. The degree of value depends, in large part, on what is trying to be accomplished with a polygraph.
I tell my clients -- all of whom are fully warned about the risks, realitites and limitations of the "test" -- that any polygraph result, which is far below a reasonable doubt, should be used as a rough guide.
Also, there is no manipulation in my tests. That's not my style. I simply run the exam and then render my opinion. Post-test interrogation is not a part of my practice, generally speaking. After my prospective clients consider polygraph's plusses and pitfallls, I leave it up to them to determine to what extent a value proposition exists in the process.
FYI, polygraph testing is sometimes used behind the scenes in both criminal and civil cases, thus some reputable attorneys do request polygraph exams from time to time. As far as the courts go, it will be a cold day in hell before polygraph "evidence" finds its way into the courts of my region, which is New England. Other states are different.
Let's visit utility for a moment... The polygraph is a great tool for developing information, especially in LEPET and PCSOT scenarios. Pre-test admissions, which, contrary to popular opinion, often happen spontaneously and with no coercion, are a great aid in furthering the risk assessment process.
Many of my polygraph peers think I'm anti-polygraph. I am not. I am, however, pro-polygraph reality. That makes many of the polygraph establishment types uneasy, for obvious reasons.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Sep 26, 2014, 10:37 AMQuote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Sep 26, 2014, 10:18 AMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 10:52 PM1st4th5thand6th, in my opinion, it is because polygraph is first and foremost an INDU$TRY.
Polygraph indu$trialists -- whether they're on the manufacturing side, in the polygraph school business, run a private practice, or are part of a government subsidized polygraph fiefdom -- certainly aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, at least in my estimation.
If the science is suspect, well...caveat emptor.
By the way, when it comes to the government's use of polygraph, it seems to me that utility trumps scientific validity, and for good reason: Polygraph utility absolutely "works."
But it comes at a cost.
Collateral damage -- as typically manifested in false-positive results -- is simply a necessary by-product.
Again, this is just one polygrapher's opinion.
OK..fair enough... but Dan... clearly you are an educated professional, I presume rational adult male. This is an INDU$TRY that is based on what? Fraud... plain and simple... You draw conclusions from a box that you know you cannot draw conclusions from. and you pass them off as expert analysis..."This shows deception" etc... Taxpayers and the government are conned out of millions and millions of dollars in the process. Your test is totally manipulated.. Christ even the waiver that lets you turn on your box is a joke. There isn't a reputable lawyer in the country that would advise his/her client to sign that.. It is so full of deliberate lies by omission it's sick .. yet this industry as usual, gets to write itself a free pass.!... You deliberately manipulate people from the time they walk in until the time they walk out...
and then claim success or failure based on your manipulations on people who are only selected if they are ignorant of your con....
This is akin to a drug company that makes a drug, pulls over 5 people to take the drug - they don't show any side effects, and the company claims it works with no side effect! And then sells it to the masses.. "Works very well with few side effects"....
Amazing.. do you think FDA would put up that...
Yet the American people, the justice department etc... don't seem to flinch... which in turn the polygraph industry just uses to egg itself on....
Does all this sound like a legitimate industry that just needs more guidelines and regulations? Please.....
Go get em' 1st4th5thand6th!
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Sep 26, 2014, 10:18 AMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 10:52 PM1st4th5thand6th, in my opinion, it is because polygraph is first and foremost an INDU$TRY.
Polygraph indu$trialists -- whether they're on the manufacturing side, in the polygraph school business, run a private practice, or are part of a government subsidized polygraph fiefdom -- certainly aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, at least in my estimation.
If the science is suspect, well...caveat emptor.
By the way, when it comes to the government's use of polygraph, it seems to me that utility trumps scientific validity, and for good reason: Polygraph utility absolutely "works."
But it comes at a cost.
Collateral damage -- as typically manifested in false-positive results -- is simply a necessary by-product.
Again, this is just one polygrapher's opinion.
OK..fair enough... but Dan... clearly you are an educated professional, I presume rational adult male. This is an INDU$TRY that is based on what? Fraud... plain and simple... You draw conclusions from a box that you know you cannot draw conclusions from. and you pass them off as expert analysis..."This shows deception" etc... Taxpayers and the government are conned out of millions and millions of dollars in the process. Your test is totally manipulated.. Christ even the waiver that lets you turn on your box is a joke. There isn't a reputable lawyer in the country that would advise his/her client to sign that.. It is so full of deliberate lies by omission it's sick .. yet this industry as usual, gets to write itself a free pass.!... You deliberately manipulate people from the time they walk in until the time they walk out...
and then claim success or failure based on your manipulations on people who are only selected if they are ignorant of your con....
This is akin to a drug company that makes a drug, pulls over 5 people to take the drug - they don't show any side effects, and the company claims it works with no side effect! And then sells it to the masses.. "Works very well with few side effects"....
Amazing.. do you think FDA would put up that...
Yet the American people, the justice department etc... don't seem to flinch... which in turn the polygraph industry just uses to egg itself on....
Does all this sound like a legitimate industry that just needs more guidelines and regulations? Please.....
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 25, 2014, 10:52 PM1st4th5thand6th, in my opinion, it is because polygraph is first and foremost an INDU$TRY.
Polygraph indu$trialists -- whether they're on the manufacturing side, in the polygraph school business, run a private practice, or are part of a government subsidized polygraph fiefdom -- certainly aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, at least in my estimation.
If the science is suspect, well...caveat emptor.
By the way, when it comes to the government's use of polygraph, it seems to me that utility trumps scientific validity, and for good reason: Polygraph utility absolutely "works."
But it comes at a cost.
Collateral damage -- as typically manifested in false-positive results -- is simply a necessary by-product.
Again, this is just one polygrapher's opinion.
Polygraph indu$trialists -- whether they're on the manufacturing side, in the polygraph school business, run a private practice, or are part of a government subsidized polygraph fiefdom -- certainly aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, at least in my estimation.
If the science is suspect, well...caveat emptor.
By the way, when it comes to the government's use of polygraph, it seems to me that utility trumps scientific validity, and for good reason: Polygraph utility absolutely "works."
But it comes at a cost.
Collateral damage -- as typically manifested in false-positive results -- is simply a necessary by-product.
Again, this is just one polygrapher's opinion.
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:29 PMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 11:55 AMDoug and George echo an inconvenient truth that the polygraph industry, generally speaking, seems content to minimize or gloss over entirely.
Dan...why do you think that is?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 25, 2014, 11:55 AMDoug and George echo an inconvenient truth that the polygraph industry, generally speaking, seems content to minimize or gloss over entirely.
The 2003 NAS study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, was quite clear, saying:
...there is evidence suggesting that truthful members of socially stigmatized groups and truthful examinees who are believed to be guilty or believed to have a high likelihood of being guilty may show emotional and physiological responses in polygraph test situations that mimic the responses that are expected of deceptive individuals.
Given all of the variables in any given polygraph exam -- examiner skills, technique used, test subject personality and suitability, environmental factors, etc. -- the real-life error rate of polygraph testing is, in my opinion, significantly higher than typically represented by polygraph proponents.
The 2003 NAS study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, was quite clear, saying:
...there is evidence suggesting that truthful members of socially stigmatized groups and truthful examinees who are believed to be guilty or believed to have a high likelihood of being guilty may show emotional and physiological responses in polygraph test situations that mimic the responses that are expected of deceptive individuals.
Given all of the variables in any given polygraph exam -- examiner skills, technique used, test subject personality and suitability, environmental factors, etc. -- the real-life error rate of polygraph testing is, in my opinion, significantly higher than typically represented by polygraph proponents.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:48 AMQuote from: pailryder on Sep 25, 2014, 09:36 AMQuote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Sep 25, 2014, 09:12 AMThere is no correlation between a physiological response and lying.
Are you saying you have never experienced a physiological change when lying to another person?
That is not the point. The problem with using the polygraph as a "lie detector" is that the "physiological change" only happens "when lying to another person" about 50% of the time. In order for the polygraph to be accurate and reliable as a "lie detector" that "physiological change" must ALWAYS indicate deception.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:45 AMQuote from: pailryder on Sep 25, 2014, 09:36 AMQuote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Sep 25, 2014, 09:12 AMThere is no correlation between a physiological response and lying.
Are you saying you have never experienced a physiological change when lying to another person?
The point is that deception in humans is not correlated in any systematic way with any of the physiological indices recorded by the polygraph.