- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 05, 2009, 04:10 PMA couple more things in addition to what George has mentioned.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm
"Our findings suggest that these VSA software programs were no better in determining deception about recent drug use among arrestees than flipping a coin."
http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/UF_Report_03_17_2006.pdf
"The findings generated by this study led to the conclusion the neither the CVSA nor the LVA were sensitive to the presence of deception or stress. Several analyses of subsets of the data were undertaken to explore any possibility that either system could perform under even more controlled conditions, but no sensitivity was observed in any of these analyses either."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673590/Eriksson-Lacerda-2007
"In summary, as our survey has shown, the VSA approach completely lacks demonstratable scientific validity. In fact, all available scientific evidence indicates that its validity is nonexistent."
Even the idea of microtremors in our voices (which the CVSA is supposed to measure) is nonsense.
"Based on the literature survey we have made, we feel confident saying that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that a microtremor in the 10 Hz region occurs in the muscles involved in speech production."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001149.html
"Specifically, the laryngeal microtremors that these techniques depend on haven't ever been shown clearly to exist, as far as I know. No one has ever shown that if these microtremors exist, it's possible to measure them in the pitch of the voice, in a way that separates them from all the other phenomena that modulate the pitch at similar rates. And that's before we get to the question of how such undefined measurements might be related to truth-telling. Or not."
The CVSA is truly utter nonsense and BS of the highest level. At least the polygraph measures responses that actually exist (despite their not being indicative of deception).
Hopefully the department you are testing with knows this and is only using the CVSA as an intimidation tool.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm
"Our findings suggest that these VSA software programs were no better in determining deception about recent drug use among arrestees than flipping a coin."
http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/UF_Report_03_17_2006.pdf
"The findings generated by this study led to the conclusion the neither the CVSA nor the LVA were sensitive to the presence of deception or stress. Several analyses of subsets of the data were undertaken to explore any possibility that either system could perform under even more controlled conditions, but no sensitivity was observed in any of these analyses either."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673590/Eriksson-Lacerda-2007
"In summary, as our survey has shown, the VSA approach completely lacks demonstratable scientific validity. In fact, all available scientific evidence indicates that its validity is nonexistent."
Even the idea of microtremors in our voices (which the CVSA is supposed to measure) is nonsense.
"Based on the literature survey we have made, we feel confident saying that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that a microtremor in the 10 Hz region occurs in the muscles involved in speech production."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001149.html
"Specifically, the laryngeal microtremors that these techniques depend on haven't ever been shown clearly to exist, as far as I know. No one has ever shown that if these microtremors exist, it's possible to measure them in the pitch of the voice, in a way that separates them from all the other phenomena that modulate the pitch at similar rates. And that's before we get to the question of how such undefined measurements might be related to truth-telling. Or not."
The CVSA is truly utter nonsense and BS of the highest level. At least the polygraph measures responses that actually exist (despite their not being indicative of deception).
Hopefully the department you are testing with knows this and is only using the CVSA as an intimidation tool.
Posted by notsure
- Mar 05, 2009, 07:57 AMstill no word on my "results" for this LE position... I was wondering if anyone had a similar experience, where they were told they were deceptive on two questions, had to do a 3rd chart and wouldnt give out the results that day...and if so, how long they made you wait till they gave you a call..... i just dont understand the charade. They said I blew them away on the oral and have been quiet ever since the CVSA....anyone that can lend some insight, thank you!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 01, 2009, 10:05 AMBased on the mildness of your post-test interrogation, it seems likely that you passed. As for how you could have shown "deception" despite telling the truth, it's not at all surprising because CVSA, like polygraphy, is junk science.
In fact, the "National Institute of Truth Verification," which markets CVSA, has admitted in federal court that the device "is not capable of lie detection." And it's worth noting that "Dr." Charles Humble, the fraudster who created CVSA, got his "Ph.D." after taking a week-long Bible course at a strip mall diploma mill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3E_2KTxI0&feature=channel_page
In fact, the "National Institute of Truth Verification," which markets CVSA, has admitted in federal court that the device "is not capable of lie detection." And it's worth noting that "Dr." Charles Humble, the fraudster who created CVSA, got his "Ph.D." after taking a week-long Bible course at a strip mall diploma mill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3E_2KTxI0&feature=channel_page
Posted by notsure
- Mar 01, 2009, 09:11 AM
ok so I took my CVSA for a law enforcement job on Friday. Was quite calm during the whole event and even felt like the detective and I had a good rapport. I am recently married so we joked a bit about that, etc. Well he said he was taking me through a "practice" one that wouldnt count but he wanted to do to get the nerves out of the way so I wouldnt get a false reading for being nervous. went through that and he said everything seemed fine. The second time "for real" one he said i was coming back as being deceptive on two questions, that i used marijuan and cocaine. A sidebar I have NEVER even seen cocaine and never came close to Marijuana, I even broke up with a GF because I found out she was smoking when I asked her not to..I dont even drink soda and I explained that to him...he said ok he had to bring it upstairs and get a third party independent person to interpret it...after ten minutes of waiting, he came back and said they were going to to do a third chart to compare it to..after the third test he says nothing and he is just going to have an independend party look at it again. I tell him again, there is nothing that bothered me about that question, that my background has been impeccable in that regard and that I have had to get drug tested at every job I have (worked the last 7 years an investment advisor). he says ok thats why we did the third chart...keeps me waiting another 10 mins, comes back and says that someone from HR will get in touch with me and good luck.... so what gives? did I pass? im flabbergasted, as apparently I was true on the questions do I associate with drug dealers (no) and did i leave anything out that would prevent me from getting hired (no)...it would seem to reason that these would have to register as true if I was doing drugs...??