AntiPolygraph.org Home Page > NAS Polygraph Review
Agenda:
AUDIOTAPES OF MEETING: The URLs are listed below.
PLEASE NOTE: Speakers are introduced by the committee chair as the tapes are played.
SOUND: You may need to ADJUST your sound as the voices/tapes are of varying volume levels. You may also need to download RealPlayer 8 in order to play the tapes at the optimum level. The BASIC RealPlayer 8 is available to download at no cost at this location (Scroll through page to locate the BASIC player): www.real.com/player.
DISCLAIMER: These tape recordings and the information contained therein is not an official report of the National Research Council or the National Academy of Sciences (Academy), and the opinions and the statements included on the tape(s) are solely those of the individual
participants, and are not adopted or endorsed or verified as accurate by the Academy.
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_1.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_2.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_3.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_4.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_5.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_6.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_7.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_8.rm
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_9.rm
___________________________________________________________________
These documents distributed at this meeting will be deposited into the Public Access Files for this project:
Iacono, William. The TAD (Test for Academic Dishonesty). A Powerpoint presentation.
Honts, Charles, R. A Powerpoint presentation.
Harris, John C., Algorithmic Polygraph Evaluation Research at JHU/APL. A Powerpoint presentation.
Harris, John C., Algorithm Overview. Handout only.
Zelicoff, Alan P., Polygraphs and the National Labs: Dangerous Ruse Undermines National Security. Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2001:21-23.
William Saletan, Polygraph Theism. MSN Slate Magazine, http://slate.msn.com/.
Donchin, Emanuel, Applied Psychophysiology: It is all in the Shell. A Powerpoint presentation.
___________________________________________________________________
These documents were included in the briefing book. This list of references can be found in the public access file:
Honts, Charles R., Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. American Psychological Society, 3(3):77-82,1994.
Honts, Charles R., The Emperor's New Clothes: Application of Polygraph Tests in the American Workplace. Forensic Reports, 4:91-116, 1991.
Cabeza, Roberto, et al., Can medial temporal lobe regions distinguish true from false? An event-related functional MRI study of veridical and illusory recognition memory. Published online before print April 3, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.081082698; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol 98, Issue 8, 4805-4810, April 10, 2001.
Keeler, Emmett, Introduction to Policy Analysis.
Faigman, David, Copyright 2002, West Publishing Co. [Not to be copied without permission]
Chapter 19: Polygraph Tests, 19-1.0 The Legal Relevance of Scientific Research on Polygraph Tests (through 19-1.5).
B. Scientific Status (Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher)
19-2.0 The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case for Polygraph Tests (through 19-2.4.3)
19-3.0 The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests (William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken) (through 19-3.4.3)
Blackwell, N. Joan. 1998. PolyScore 3.3 and Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Rates of Accuracy When Scoring Examinations from Actual Criminal Investigations. Ft. McClellan, AL: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
Elaad, E., A. Ginton, and N. Jungman. 1992. Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(5):757-767.
Ginton, A., N. Daie, and E. Elaad. 1982. A method for evaluating the Uue of the polygraph in a real-life situation. Journal of Applied Psychology 67(2):131-137.
Honts, C.R., D.C. Raskin, and J.C. Kircher. 1994. Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology 79():252-259.
Horvath, F. 1977. The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology 62(2):127-136.
Patrick, C.J., and W.G. Iacono. 1991. A comparison of field and laboratory polygraphs in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology 28(6):632-638.
Podlesny, J.A., and C.M. Truslow. 1993. Validity of an expanded-issue (Modified General Question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed-crime-roles context. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5):788-797.
Seymour, T.L., C.M. Siefert, M.G. Shafto, and A.L. Mosmann. 2000. Using response time measures to assess guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1):30-37.
Szucko, J.J. 1982. Clinical Judgment in the Polygraph Test: A Field Study. Dissertation. Ft. Jackson, SC: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. 98 pages.
Nowhere to Hide, New Scientist, 2001
Scientists eyeing high-tech upgrade for lie detectors, Boston Globe, 6/16/01
Porges, Stephen W., Ph.D., Report of Peer Review of Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory. March 28-29, 1996. JHU/APL Facility, Laurel, MD. Can also be found at: http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygph2/html/peerrview.html.
___________________________________________________________________
CARRIAGE HOUSE
Woods Hole Study Center, 314 Quissett Avenue, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Telephone: 508/548-3760; Fax: 508/540-4236
__________________________________________________________________
NOTE: BELOW IS A REVISED AGENDA
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This meeting is being audiotaped with the intent that the sponsor of the workshop, the National Academies, will reproduce and distribute audiotapes of the same to the general public in all media now or hereafter known and throughout the world, including but not limited to, publication and distribution via the World Wide Web. Participants and attendees hereby authorize the National Academies, and others acting on their behalf, to publish, use, transcribe, duplicate, disclose, perform, exhibit, display, modify, or edit their voices and/or images recorded as part of the record of this meeting.
AGENDA
8:00 am
Breakfast Buffet in Main House
8:30 am
Introductions and Welcome (Stephen Fienberg, committee chair)
Utility of the Polygraph
8:45 am
Charles Honts, Boise State University
9:30 am
Discussion
9:45 am
William Iacono, University of Minnesota
10:30 am
Discussion
Reliability of the Polygraph
10:45 am
John Harris, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11:15 am
Discussion
Possible Alternate Methods (Brain-Related Technologies)
11:30 am
Emanuel Donchin, University of Illinois
12:00 pm
Discussion
12:15 pm
Buffet Lunch in Main House
Polygraph Research
1:15 pm
Sheila Reed, North Texas State Hospital
1:45 pm
Discussion
Possible Alternate Methods (continued)
2:00 pm
Stephen Kosslyn, Harvard University
2:30 pm
Discussion
2:45 pm
Break
Polygraph Research (continued)
3:00 pm
Andrew Ryan, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute
3:30 pm
Discussion
Policy Analysis
3:45 pm
Emmett Keeler (committee member)
4:15 pm
Discussion
4:30 pm
General Discussion
5:00 pm
Adjournment
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
This meeting is being held to gather information to help the committee conduct its study. This committee will examine the information and material obtained during this, and other public meetings, in an effort to inform its work. Although opinions may be stated and lively discussion may ensue, no conclusions are being drawn at this time; no recommendations will be made. In fact, the committee will deliberate thoroughly before writing its draft report. Moreover, once the draft report is written, it must go through a rigorous review by experts who are anonymous to the committee, and the committee then must respond to this review with appropriate revisions that adequately satisfy the Academy's Report Review committee and the chair of the NRC before it is considered an NRC report. Therefore, observers who draw conclusions about the committee's work based on today's discussions will be doing so prematurely.
Furthermore, individual committee members often engage in discussion and questioning for the specific purpose of probing an issue and sharpening an argument. The comments of any given committee member may not necessarily reflect the position he or she may actually hold on the subject under discussion, to say nothing of that person's future position as it may evolve in the course of the project. Any inferences about an individual's position regarding findings or recommendations in the final report are therefore also premature.
AntiPolygraph.org Home Page > NAS Polygraph Review