Layered Voice Analysis (LVA)

[Saidme]

Thanks for correcting him Anonymous.  

[suethem]

Saidme,

Do you think that LVA can distinguish truth from deception, based solely on it technology (meaning no post interrogation)?

[Saidme]

I've never used LVA and wouldn't know what one looked like even if it were hooked to George.  As I stated earlier in this thread, I put little credibility in CVSA or LVA.  I'm sure the next statement from one of you will ask how I can make such an assessment without ever having used it.  Because we're in America where I can voice my opinion on anything.  I assume LVA training is probably quite similar to CVSA training.  Which means, within a very short period of time you can have your secretary out running CVSA and LVA exams.  Sounds dangerous.  

[suethem]

Saidme,

Does it really matter what kind of machine or system is used?

It's the confession that the proof, right?

Do you really think that the polygraph is any more or less accurate?

[Saidme]

Yes I do!  I've had several exams over the years where no confession was obtained, yet additional evidence was obtained later which verified the polygraph results.  You can say whatever you want but years of success can't be just ignored or thrown away.

[suethem]

saidme,

How many times over how many years= what percent of accuracy?

[True Dat]

Now we're cooking.  Let's not leave anyone out when it comes to credibility.  Attack us all.  True_dat is going to have to go back to George's basher school.  He/she's a little slow on the up-take.  You should know better than to give any hint of a compliment to a polygraph examiner.

Just curious..what would make you think I was actually close to giving you a 'hint of a compliment'?  

If laughing at how even a polygraph apologist such as yourself turns his back on his own kind is some sort of compliment, feel free to pat yourself on the back alittle more.  

[Some VA Experience]

  I worked in the polygraph/voice analysis field in the early 70's and performed double blind analyses of tape recordings of interrogations in both English and in a non-Romance language to ascertain truth or deceit with a prototype voice stress analyzer. The research work was paid for, in part, by several federal agencies. The analyses that I performed resulted in an assessment of 83% accuracy, based on post-interrogation determination of the truthfulness of taped responses.

I felt good about the 83%, it was comparable to polygraph and a whole lot more efficient, but it wasn't good enough to call this technology "lie detection", which is why we continued to call it voice stress analysis.

I read the LVA brochure - very interesting and a quantum leap in the technology. I'd love to know the specifics of their "18 voice parameters", since I was pretty well versed in this stuff once. I find their claims to be a great stretch and am very curious how they achive this. They don't have to worry about patent infringement, I have my own and am not interested in theirs.

[Marty]

I worked in the polygraph/voice analysis field in the early 70's and performed double blind analyses of tape recordings of interrogations in both English and in a non-Romance language to ascertain truth or deceit with a prototype voice stress analyzer. The research work was paid for, in part, by several federal agencies. The analyses that I performed resulted in an assessment of 83% accuracy, based on post-interrogation determination of the truthfulness of taped responses.

I felt good about the 83%, it was comparable to polygraph and a whole lot more efficient, but it wasn't good enough to call this technology "lie detection", which is why we continued to call it voice stress analysis.

I read the LVA brochure - very interesting and a quantum leap in the technology. I'd love to know the specifics of their "18 voice parameters", since I was pretty well versed in this stuff once. I find their claims to be a great stretch and am very curious how they achive this. They don't have to worry about patent infringement, I have my own and am not interested in theirs.

Double blind eh?  Where is the study published? I would be most interested in understanding it (especially being an EE).

-Marty

[Mr. Truth]

Which brings up an interesting point: anyone who has a background in math/science/engineering is going to be skeptical of unsupported claims about the efficacy of the polygraph. My guess is that the "Dr." who made a post is a Ph.D. - in a non-science related area, like psychology, education, and so on. The EdD's, "doctor" of education, is the lowest, I mean the absolute lowest, form of any doctorate, and they tend to overuse the "Dr." title. But I digress.

Any "Dr." who makes claims about how accurate or reliable some instrument is surely knows those claims are going to be challenged, and that is part of the scientific method. Claims without supporting evidence are BS, and that is a fact.

[Rick Fuller]

Marty 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.

[Marty]

Marty 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

[George W. Maschke]

See 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

[Tamar Eden]

What 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!

[Linda]

Okay, 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?