National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$49.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003)
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences (BBCSS)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data." The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
321
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


The Polygraph and Lie Detection

   

Raskin say they are using, a more statistically accepted procedure is to calculate a score using a quadratic discriminant function.

4.  

A proper Bayesian calculation would be far more elaborate and might produce markedly different results.

5.  

The distinctions made regarding the logistic regression and discriminant analysis methods used by the two systems are not especially cogent for present purposes.

REFERENCES

Breiman, L. 2001 Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with discussion). Statistical Science 16:199-231.

Brownley, K.A., B.E. Hurwitz, and N. Schneiderman 2000 Cardiovascular psychophysiology. Chapter 9, pp. 224-264, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd ed., J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, and G.G. Bernston, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Copas, J.B., and P. Corbett 2002 Overestimation of the receiver operating characteristic curve for logistic regression. Biometrika 89:315-331.


Dawson, M., A.M. Schell, and D.L. Filion 2000 The electrodermal system. Chapter 8, pp. 200-223, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd ed., J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, and G.G. Bernston, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dollins, A.B., D.J. Krapohl, and D.W. Dutton 2000 A comparison of computer programs designed to evaluate psychophysiological detection of deception examinations: Bakeoff 1. Polygraph 29(3):237-257.


Gratton, G. 2000 Biosignal Processing. Chapter 33, pp. 900-923, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd ed., J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, and G.G. Bernston, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Harris, J. 1996 Real Crime Validation of the PolyScore® 3.0 Zone Comparison Scoring Algorithm. Unpublished paper. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

Harris, J., et al. 1994 Polygraph Automated Scoring System. U.S. Patent Document. Patent Number: 5,327,899.

Harver, A., and T.S. Lorig 2000 Respiration. Chapter 10, pp. 265-293, in Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd ed., J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, and G.G. Bernston, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman 2001 The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction. New York: Springer-Verlag.


Kircher, J.C., and D.C. Raskin 1988 Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 73:291-302.

2002 Computer methods for the psychophysiological detection of deception. Chapter 11, pp. 287-326, in Handbook of Polygraph Testing, M. Kleiner, ed. London: Academic Press.

Page
321