Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures

The most commonly used method for detecting deception is based on the assumption that lies given by a person in response to critical questions posed during a polygraph examination will elicit an identifiable pattern of autonomic reactivity. Critics of this method argue that a polygraph examination cannot detect lying because lying does not produce a distinct physiological response. They assert that the possession of information only the guilty person would be expected to have can be revealed in a polygraph examination, however, by the pattern of autonomic arousal presentation of this information elicits in a person who possesses it. In this article, the position is taken that the dependence of both procedures on autonomic measures diminishes their effectiveness and inhibits the development of alternatives. A few studies are reviewed that suggest that measures of brain electrical activity can be used to infer the possession of information in persons attempting to conceal it

[1]  D. Dougherty,et al.  The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific analysis and public controversy. , 1985 .

[2]  M. Kutas.  Event related brain potential studies of language , 1988 .

[3]  T R Bashore,et al.  Optimal digital filters for long-latency components of the event-related brain potential. , 1993, Psychophysiology.

[4]  David T. Lykken.  Detection of guilty knowledge: A comment on Forman and McCauley. , 1988 .

[5]  C. Honts,et al.  Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. , 1985, Journal of Applied Psychology.

[6]  J. Allen,et al.  The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioral measures: a methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. , 1992, Psychophysiology.

[7]  K. Meador,et al.  Cholinergic and serotonergic effects on the P3 potential and recent memory. , 1989, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[8]  M. Orne,et al.  Cognitive, Social, and Personality Processes in the Physiological Detection of Deception , 1981 .

[9]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[10]  D. C. Raskin,et al.  Truth and deception: a reply to Lykken. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  P. Tueting,et al.  Event-related brain potentials in man , 1978 .

[12]  Scott H. Decker,et al.  Law and Society Review , 1979 .

[13]  David T. Lykken,et al.  Trial by polygraph , 1984 .

[14]  S. Bok,et al.  Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life , 1979 .

[15]  K. Meador,et al.  Central cholinergic systems and the P3 evoked potential. , 1987, The International journal of neuroscience.

[16]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  Definition, Identification, and Reliability of Measurement of the P300 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential , 1987 .

[17]  S. Brodsky.  Criminal Justice and Behavior , 1980 .

[18]  D. Lykken,et al.  The detection of deception. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  E Donchin,et al.  Beyond averaging: the use of discriminant functions to recognize event related potentials elicited by single auditory stimuli. , 1976, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[20]  E. Donchin,et al.  Cognitive Psychophysiology and Human Information Processing , 1986 .

[21]  R. Hare,et al.  Psychopathy and Event-Related Brain Potentials (ERPs) associated with attention to speech stimuli☆ , 1987 .

[22]  Enoch Callaway,et al.  The Pharmacology of Human Information Processing , 1983 .

[23]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  Manipulation of P3 latency: speed vs. accuracy instructions. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Principles of signal acquisition and analysis , 1986 .

[25]  P. Venables,et al.  Enhanced P3 evoked potentials and longer P3 recovery times in psychopaths. , 1988, Psychophysiology.

[26]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading between the lines: Event-related brain potentials during natural sentence processing , 1980, Brain and Language.

[27]  G. Gudjonsson.  Some psychological determinants of electrodermal responses to deception , 1982 .

[28]  D. C. Raskin,et al.  Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. , 1988, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  R L Stubblefield,et al.  Behavioral sciences and the law. , 1966, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[30]  E. Donchin,et al.  A simulation study of the efficacy of stepwise discriminant analysis in the detection and comparison of event related potentials. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[31]  H G Vaughan,et al.  Association cortex potentials and reaction time in auditory discrimination. , 1972, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[32]  E Donchin,et al.  Beyond averaging. II. Single-trial classification of exogenous event-related potentials using stepwise discriminant analysis. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[33]  E. Donchin,et al.  On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[34]  A Review of the Office of Technology Assessment Report on Polygraph Validity , 1988 .

[35]  M. Kutas,et al.  An Electrophysiological Probe of Incidental Semantic Association , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  E. Donchin,et al.  Psychophysiology : systems, processes, and applications , 1987 .

[37]  R D Hare,et al.  Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[38]  M. Kutas,et al.  A preliminary comparison of the N400 response to semantic anomalies during reading, listening and signing. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[39]  David T. Lykken,et al.  The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. , 1960 .

[40]  Salim Roukos,et al.  Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. , 1983, Psychophysiology.

[41]  J. Martin Giesen,et al.  Guilty Knowledge versus Innocent Associations: Effects of Trait Anxiety and Stimulus Context on Skin Conductance. , 1980 .

[42]  Fred E. Inbau,et al.  Truth and deception : the polygraph (lie-detector) technique , 1977 .

[43]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[44]  T. Allison,et al.  THE FUNCTIONAL NEUROANATOMY OF EVENT RELATED POTENTIALS , 1978 .

[45]  C. Honts,et al.  Effects of socialization on the physiological detection of deception , 1985 .

[46]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[47]  S. Farmer,et al.  The effects of physical and semantic incongruities on auditory event-related potentials. , 1984, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[48]  D. Lykken.  The GSR in the detection of guilt. , 1959 .

[49]  I. Fischler,et al.  Brain potentials during sentence verification: Automatic aspects of comprehension , 1985, Biological Psychology.

[50]  P. Venables,et al.  Contingent negative variation, P3 evoked potentials, and antisocial behavior. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[51]  Walter Ritter,et al.  6 On Relating Event-Related Potential Components to Stages of Information Processing* , 1983 .

[52]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 2004 .

[53]  Benjamin Kleinmuntz,et al.  Statistical versus clinical lie detection. , 1981 .

[54]  D. C. Raskin.  Scientific assessment of the accuracy of detection of deception: a reply to Lykken. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[55]  Ronald J. Heslegrave,et al.  Validity of the Lie Detector , 1988 .

[56]  Gershon Ben-Shakhar,et al.  Trial by polygraph: Scientific and juridical issues in lie detection , 1986 .

[57]  T W Picton,et al.  The component structure of the human event-related potentials. , 1980, Progress in brain research.

[58]  Individual differences in psychophysiological responsiveness in laboratory tests of deception , 1987 .

[59]  D. C. Raskin,et al.  Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[60]  C D Wickens,et al.  Adult age differences in the speed and capacity of information processing: 2. An electrophysiological approach. , 1987, Psychology and aging.

[61]  Benjamin Kleinmuntz,et al.  Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study. , 1984 .

[62]  B. Kleinmuntz,et al.  On the fallibility of lie detection. , 1982 .

[63]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure , 1985 .

[64]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[65]  M. Orne,et al.  Effects of level of socialization on electrodermal detection of deception. , 1979, Psychophysiology.

[66]  F. Macar,et al.  An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[67]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  The P300 component of the event-related brain potential as an index of information processing , 1982, Biological Psychology.

[68]  Gordon H. Barland,et al.  An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception. , 1975, Psychophysiology.

[69]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[70]  R. Johnson.  A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[71]  W. Iacono,et al.  Effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge. , 1984, The Journal of applied psychology.

[72]  I. Lieblich,et al.  An Evaluation of Polygraphers' Judgments: A Review From a Decision Theoretic Perspective , 1982 .

[73]  J. Ford,et al.  Event-related potentials recorded from young and old adults during a memory retrieval task. , 1979, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[74]  A. Gale.  The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science. , 1988 .

[75]  J. Furedy.  Evaluating polygraphy from a psychophysiological perspective: A specific-effects analysis , 1987, The Pavlovian journal of biological science.

[76]  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. , 1977 .

[77]  P. Holcomb.  Automatic and attentional processing: An event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming , 1988, Brain and Language.

[78]  Donald G. Childers,et al.  Brain potentials during sentence verification: Late negativity and long-term memory strength , 1984, Neuropsychologia.

[79]  D. S. Holmes,et al.  Effects of repeated examinations on the ability to detect guilt with a polygraphic examination: A laboratory experiment with a real crime. , 1979 .

[80]  N. Murray,et al.  The London symposia , 1987 .

[81]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words , 1980, Biological Psychology.

[82]  J J Furedy,et al.  Differentiation of deception as a psychological process: a psychophysiological approach. , 1988, Psychophysiology.

[83]  Charles R. Honts,et al.  Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. , 1987 .

[84]  E. Donchin,et al.  COGNITIVE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY: THE ENDOGENOUS COMPONENTS OF THE ERP , 1978 .

[85]  J P Rosenfeld,et al.  Late vertex positivity in event-related potentials as a guilty knowledge indicator: a new method of life detection. , 1987, The International journal of neuroscience.

[86]  H. J. Eysenck,et al.  Advances in psychophysiology: J.R. Jennings, P.K. Ackles & M.G.H. Coles (Eds) Vol.5 (1993).320 pp. £42.50 (hardback). ISBN 185302 191 1 , 1994 .

[87]  P. Tueting,et al.  Brain and information: event-related potentials. , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[88]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  Emitted and evoked P300 potentials and variation in stimulus probability. , 1975, Psychophysiology.

[89]  J P Rosenfeld,et al.  A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. , 1988, The International journal of neuroscience.

[90]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Modern mental chronometry , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[91]  K. Brookhuis,et al.  Stage analysis of the reaction process using brain-evoked potentials and reaction time , 1984, Psychological research.

[92]  E. Donchin.  Multivariate analysis of event-related potential data: A tutorial review , 1978 .

[93]  D. Lykken,et al.  The psychopath and the lie detector. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[94]  E Donchin,et al.  A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. , 1981, Science.

[95]  W. Pritchard.  Psychophysiology of P300. , 1981, Psychological bulletin.

[96]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Anatomical and Physiological Substrates of Event‐Related Potentials , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.