Reprinted from the Scientific Journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise2012 Annual Issue, Number 57 James L. Chapman, Professor Emeritus Former Director of Forensic Crime LaboratoryState University of New York at Corning, NY USA Marigo Stathis Scientific Consultant, Research Analyst
96.4% Confirmed Accurate Results
If you don’t want to read the entire report of Professor Chapman’s study, skip most and read points 4 & 5. If you are serious about information and research in Voice Stress, you will then be motivated to read everything.
Research Casts Doubt on US Government-Funded VSA Studies
The results of a recent study published in Law and Human Behavior, Volume 33, Number 6, December 2009, titled “Police Lie Detection Accuracy: The Effect of Lie Scenarios” conducted by Maureen O’Sullivan, Mark G. Frank, Carolyn M. Hurly and Jaspreet Tiwana, report that “Lie Detection” studies conducted by many universities and other researchers suffered from design flaws, and thus the validity of these studies is questionable. The research found that “Across 23 studies, involving 31 different police groups in eight countries, police officers tested with lie detection scenarios using high stakes lies (i.e., the lie was personally involving and/or resulted in substantial rewards or punishments for the liar) were significantly more accurate than law enforcement officials tested with low stakes lies.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/e93797p0x240570p/
The findings and implications of the study are important to VSA Examiners. They support the long-held contention of the VSA community that the vast majority of VSA studies funded by pro-polygraph elements of the US Government were significantly flawed. One of the many flaws of these studies identified by professional researchers and peer reviewers was that they lacked real-life consequence and thus lacked jeopardy. Instead they relied on contrived or artificial game playing scenarios in an attempt to induce jeopardy, or they eliminated both consequences and jeopardy by providing the subjects of the experiments with guaranteed confidentiality regarding any statements they made (whether these statements were incriminating or not). According to the cited research, such protocols produce “low stakes lies” (by removing consequence/jeopardy). The researchers make the case that consequence and jeopardy found in “high stakes lies” are required to accurately and consistently detect deception. Most VSA studies conducted utilized “low stakes lies” in an attempt to measure the results of various VSA instruments. These studies were funded, overseen or supervised by polygraph proponents of the US Government. Although the flaws in these studies have been previously exposed by both professional researchers and peer reviewers, the polygraph community continues to rely on them in an attempt to discredit VSA technology. The findings of the O’Sullivan study provide further evidence regarding the lack of scientific validity of these poorly designed studies.
LVA embarrassing demonstration by V’s CEO
In contrast to polygraph machines, which work by measuring physiological changes such as perspiration and breathing rate, LVA technology "can tell what your emotional investment is, what you're thinking, what you're filtering," even if you're speaking in a language unfamiliar to the examiner, says V CEO Richard Parton, Ph.D. "It can tell how much you're thinking about something ... and if you have a subconscious thought that you don't even realize." It does this, he says, using 8,000 algorithms applied to 128 different parameters. Analyzing two-second chunks of speech, the software spits out brief phrases characterizing the utterance, such as "stressed," "inaccuracy," "truth," and "not sure."
Parton demonstrated the technology for Security Management by using the LVA on one editor. The software's analysis of the editor's brief, largely verifiable biography--name, title, employer, higher education, previous work experience, and so on--generated a stream of "highly stressed," "inaccuracy," "probable false," and stressed responses. Two segments characterized as "truth" turned out to be breathing sounds.
Security Management Magazine - 2003
American Society for Industrial Security
Some of the other studies that was done during the years since the inception of VSA & Polygraph is listed on the Baker Group International’s site:- http://www.bakerdvsa.com You can find more on most of the Polygraph and VSA association’s websites.
Be careful though, some of these sites only list the studies that were done that favour their own course.
Please don't get caught in the senseless arguments between the VSA and Polygraph industries of what method is the best. We use both techniques and can assure you both work and have its place as effective tools to detect deception.
A good source of information is also found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_stress_analysis (Wikipedia) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph (Wikipedia)
Some Government institutions in South Africa already trained by us and using Expertos v5 software:
SARS and the SAPS came on board recently. Welcor TVC and Vintotron CC brought Gary Baker from the USA to South Africa to kick off the training program for SARS and the SAPS.
Soon there will be no lying to the Government.
Other South African agancies trained and using the system:
Other Governments that make use of Voice Stress tests are:
|GUATEMALA||COSTA RICA||EL SALVADOR|