- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 24, 2005, 12:27 PMQuote from: gelb disliker on Dec 24, 2005, 09:32 AMWould normal pitch or patterns of a person's voice be construed as stress? take an adolescent whose voice pattern can change constantly because of growth and hormonal changes. so where is the considered baseline on where the voice is considered normal and considered stressed? sounds like a guessing game to me.
As with polygraphy, there is no peer-reviewed research supporting the validity of "Layered Voice Analysis" for lie detection, love detection, or any other purpose for any age group.
Posted by gelb disliker
- Dec 24, 2005, 09:32 AMWould normal pitch or patterns of a person's voice be construed as stress? take an adolescent whose voice pattern can change constantly because of growth and hormonal changes. so where is the considered baseline on where the voice is considered normal and considered stressed? sounds like a guessing game to me.
Posted by polyscam
- Apr 22, 2005, 08:26 PMQuoteIf George gives them his audio recording and they do the LVA test, it would show that he is not affraid to find out the truth, even if it isn't a full blown scientific test.
An audio recording of Mr. Maschke's voice is available on the home page of this website. Go ahead and give it a try. Mr. Maschke may very well oblige you, but why should he. As you note it isn't a full blown scientific test. The only science to it is that it records the unexplored world of vocal stress patterns.
QuoteI have been hearing a lot of second hand stories about the amazing results some of my police friends have been getting using the LVA software.
I would venture that these "amazing results" are the fruits of deception. It is not that the "test" works. It is that the criminals providing a confession believe it works.
If you are interested, I have for sale, beach-front property in Arizona.
Posted by veritatis
- Apr 22, 2005, 07:16 PMIf George gives them his audio recording and they do the LVA test, it would show that he is not affraid to find out the truth, even if it isn't a full blown scientific test. I for one would like to see the results. I have been hearing a lot of second hand stories about the amazing results some of my police friends have been getting using the LVA software.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 20, 2004, 08:12 AMQuote from: A reasonable suggestion on Jun 16, 2004, 10:55 AMWell it would give you the opportunity to compare the responses to your answers like for like.
But such a small study would be statistically meaningless and would reveal nothing about the validity of Layered Voice Analysis.
QuoteIt would also protect you from a charge of being guilty of "contempt prior to investigation" which is your current position from an epistemiological perspective.
If you review this message thread, you'll find that I have, in fact, investigated Layered Voice Analysis. And I found no credible evidence to support the claims of those marketing it. If you are aware of relevant information that you think I have ignored, please direct me to it.
QuoteI don't know whether this stuff works or not so to hear a first hand report of a direct comparison between these two systems would have been helpful.
But the experiment you suggested would reveal nothing about the validity of Layered Voice Analysis, not only because of the small sample size, but also because of the virtual impossibility of independently verifying ground truth in a screening scenario such as you proposed: the questions asked in pre-employment screening polygraph examinations typically involve using and selling drugs, espionage, and sabotage. But how can one prove that one has never done these things? You cannot prove a negative.
A more revealing experiment that I might be willing to partake in is this: on videotape, I will flip a coin 100 times, with the result being shown on camera. After each flip, I will make two statements: 1) The coin is heads up; 2) The coin is tails up. These statements will also be audio recorded.
The purveyors of Layered Voice Analysis will receive the audio recording, perform an analysis of my voice, and determine the result of each coin toss. The results will then be placed on-line for the edification of all.
QuoteBut I do understand the difficulty from your own personal stance. Should this equipment actually vindicate your polygraph experience where would you go from there?
It's not concern about the possible results of the experiment that you suggested which leads me to conclude that it would not be worthwhile, but rather the fact that the results would shed no light on the validity of Layered Voice Analysis.
By contrast, the experiment I have suggested would produce results that could readily be compared against ground truth and from which some logical inference(s) might be possible.
Posted by NeutralObserver
- Jun 19, 2004, 05:31 PMQuote from: a reasonable suggestion on Jun 19, 2004, 05:13 PMTo Neutral Observer
I hadn't thought of it that way. I actually meant vindicate George by results agreeing with his claim that he was telling the truth. To be believed by something you don't believe in would be a bit awkward to say the least.
Thanks for pointing that out, it would take someone with considerable cajones and integrity to have taken up my reasonable suggestion in these circumstances
And since George has neither cajones nor integrity, you can rest assured he will not be taking any more tests.
Posted by a reasonable suggestion
- Jun 19, 2004, 05:13 PMTo Neutral Observer
I hadn't thought of it that way. I actually meant vindicate George by results agreeing with his claim that he was telling the truth. To be believed by something you don't believe in would be a bit awkward to say the least.
Thanks for pointing that out, it would take someone with considerable cajones and integrity to have taken up my reasonable suggestion in these circumstances
I hadn't thought of it that way. I actually meant vindicate George by results agreeing with his claim that he was telling the truth. To be believed by something you don't believe in would be a bit awkward to say the least.
Thanks for pointing that out, it would take someone with considerable cajones and integrity to have taken up my reasonable suggestion in these circumstances
Posted by NeutralObserver
- Jun 17, 2004, 05:34 PMQuote from: A reasonable suggestion on Jun 16, 2004, 10:55 AMWell it would give you the opportunity to compare the responses to your answers like for like.
It would also protect you from a charge of being guilty of "contempt prior to investigation" which is your current position from an epistemiological perspective.
I don't know whether this stuff works or not so to hear a first hand report of a direct comparison between these two systems would have been helpful.
But I do understand the difficulty from your own personal stance. Should this equipment actually vindicate your polygraph experience where would you go from there?
Right, that would make George a three time loser. And it would strain anyone's credulity to think he was anything but the liar he has been diagnosed as being on both previous polygraph tests.
Posted by A reasonable suggestion
- Jun 16, 2004, 10:55 AMWell it would give you the opportunity to compare the responses to your answers like for like.
It would also protect you from a charge of being guilty of "contempt prior to investigation" which is your current position from an epistemiological perspective.
I don't know whether this stuff works or not so to hear a first hand report of a direct comparison between these two systems would have been helpful.
But I do understand the difficulty from your own personal stance. Should this equipment actually vindicate your polygraph experience where would you go from there?
It would also protect you from a charge of being guilty of "contempt prior to investigation" which is your current position from an epistemiological perspective.
I don't know whether this stuff works or not so to hear a first hand report of a direct comparison between these two systems would have been helpful.
But I do understand the difficulty from your own personal stance. Should this equipment actually vindicate your polygraph experience where would you go from there?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 12, 2004, 12:12 AMWhat purpose would be served by such an undertaking? I think it would be about as interesting as posing the questions to a Magic 8-Ball.
Instead, those claiming that Layered Voice Analysis is a reliable test for deception should provide proof, something they have thus far utterly failed to do.
Instead, those claiming that Layered Voice Analysis is a reliable test for deception should provide proof, something they have thus far utterly failed to do.
Posted by A reasonable suggestion?
- Jun 10, 2004, 02:04 PMHey George,
Why don't you undergo exactly the same questioning with LVA that you had with the polygragh?
I think it would be really interesting to hear your opinions on the whole experience from a firsthand perspective.
Would that be possible?
Why don't you undergo exactly the same questioning with LVA that you had with the polygragh?
I think it would be really interesting to hear your opinions on the whole experience from a firsthand perspective.
Would that be possible?
Posted by Linda
- Apr 07, 2004, 07:56 PMOkay, if this technology is as good as the creator claims, then can an insurance company deny a claim based on the results of the LAV? How do the results effect law enforcement? 
Posted by Tamar Eden
- Mar 04, 2004, 08:46 AMWhat a bloody Joke!!!!!!!!
The Software in question was originally marketed in Israel as a child's TOY!! (Ex-Sense Pro) and sold in toystores and bookstores without that much success.
Please keep in mind that here in Israel, we also use handwriting analysis, amulets, and magic spells (blessings) as a matter of routine within our government agencies.
The Hebrew word for "sucker" is "freir", and only freirs would be taken in by such deceptive marketing!
The Software in question was originally marketed in Israel as a child's TOY!! (Ex-Sense Pro) and sold in toystores and bookstores without that much success.
Please keep in mind that here in Israel, we also use handwriting analysis, amulets, and magic spells (blessings) as a matter of routine within our government agencies.
The Hebrew word for "sucker" is "freir", and only freirs would be taken in by such deceptive marketing!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 21, 2004, 04:55 AMSee Colin R. Johnson's EE Times article, "Lie detector glasses offer peek at future of security" for recent news on "Layered Voice Analysis":
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040116S0050
A lively discussion of this article is to be found on Slashdot.org here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/01/20/1857249.shtml
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040116S0050
A lively discussion of this article is to be found on Slashdot.org here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/01/20/1857249.shtml
Posted by Marty
- Sep 30, 2003, 04:12 PMQuote from: Rick Fuller on Sep 30, 2003, 04:02 PMMarty wants to know where study was published. The only publication I am aware of was a Technical Report to the US Army's Limited Warfare Laboratories in 1973. I used to have a copy and if I find it, can provide the document number, but if you're handy retrieving federal documents from their archive services it should be locatable. If its interesting, there were several EE's associated with this sudy, as well as Psychology PHD's (and one ABD). And, of course, appropriately qualified personnel from several selected federal agencies who had an interest.
Rick,
Thanks. Unfortunately, having only worked in the private sector, I'm ill equiped to search this. It's likely some others here could assist though. Being an EE by profession, I am most interested in how this was approached. Especially given the limited technology back then. These days the most sophisticated DSP is dirt cheap.
-Marty