1

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Carlos Hilado Memorial State College
Brgy. Enclaro, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental

LIE
DETEC
TION
TECHN
IQUES
(FOR11
5)
Module
7
INSTRUCTORS:

LORIEJEN FIDELSON – DEQUILATO, RCRIM., MSCJ

PURISIMA G. ROMERO, RCRIM., MSCJ

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
2

CHART INTERPRETATION & LEGAL STATUS

OF POLYGRAPHY

LESSON OBJECTIVES:
 Develop expertise in chart interpretation
 Be familiar with the process on how the chart/polygram is interpreted

INTRODUCTION:

Although the polygraph instrument is the centerpiece of the technique, the

ability of the polygraph test to detect deception also depends critically on other
elements of the process. One is the interpretation of the polygraph chart.

Interpretation normally involves comparison of physiological

responses to “relevant” questions (i.e., questions about the issue that is the focus of
the examination) and responses to other questions that are asked for purposes of
comparison.3 Interpretation is often done by the examiner, who reviews the chart
and may code it according to a standard protocol. People other than the examiner
may also use such a protocol to code a chart. Chart interpretation can also be done by
computer.

LESSON 1:

In every polygraph test chart, there are two kinds of responses where deception may be
traced namely;

1. Normal Response – refers to the tracing that doesn’t deviate from the norms of the
subject’s psychophysiological response of the subject and usually appears when
he/she is asked about irrelevant questions.
2. Specific Response – refers to any deviation from the normal tracing of the subject in
the relevant and control questions.

There are four (4) classifications or segments;

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
3

1. The Average Tracing Segment- a segment within a tracing that shows no

physiological evidence of a change in the emotional level within the stress area on the
polygraph chart. (Backster 1970, Matte 1980). This is also known as Tomic level
(Weinstein 1995, DoDPI 1996).

2. The Reaction Tracing Segment- a segment within a tracing that shows physiological
evidence that tha sympathetic subdivisions of the autonomic nervous system has 16
become more active, indicating a psychological change from the subjects average
emotional level. (Backster 1970, Matte 1980). This is also known as Phasic or Tomic
Response (Weinstein 1995, DoDPI 1996).

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
4

3. The Relief Tracing Segment-is a segment within a tracing that shows physiological
evidence that tha parasympathetic subdivision of the autonomic nervous system has
become more active following the stress area on the polygraph chart, indicating a
psychological return to the subject’s exhibited average emotional level (Backster
1970, Matte 1980).This condition is also known as Homeostatic Change (Weinstein
1995, DoDPI 1996).

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
5

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
6

4. The Distortion Tracing Segment- refers to a segment within a tracing that departs
from the average emotional level but lacks physiological evidence of either
sympathetic or parasympathetic activation within the stress area on the polygraph

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
7

chart, indicating absence of psychological origin. (Backster 1970, Matte 1980). This
condition is also referred to as Artifact (Weinstein 1995, DoDPI 1996)

FEATURES:
The suppression of breathing has been found to be a reliable indicator of arousal
during polygraph testing (Harris et al., 2001; Kircher et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2008).

Examinees who deliberately control their breathing rate to affect the physiological
data recorded by the polygraph can be determined by observing the regularity and
characteristics of respiration rate:

1. Eupnea – normal breathing

2. Tachypnea- fast breathing
3. Bradypnea – slow breathing
Factors that affect breathing pattern:
Age Athleticism
Disease Excessive Deep Breathing

PNEUMOGRAPH TRACINGS INDICATIVE OF DECEPTION

a) Change in amplitude or volume;
b) Change in rhythm or regularity; Ex. Shallow
c) Change in the inhalation and/or exhalation ratio;
d) Change of baseline;
e) Loss of baseline;
f) Hyperventilation; (deep breathing)
g) Suppression;
h) Respiratory block.

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
8

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
9

GALVANOGRAPH TRACINGS INDICATIVE OF DECEPTION

The galvanograph tracing is located at the center portion of the chart when properly
balanced
takes the form of a slightly wavering line across the middle portion of the chart with a minor
response to spoken stimuli. The ff are the tracings:

a) Vertical rise at point of deception;

b) Double saddle response;

c) Plunging galvo tracing;

d) Long degree and/or duration of response following point of deception.

CARDIOSPHYGMOGRAPH TRACINGS INDICATIVE OF DECEPTION

The tracing is usually found at the bottom of the chart & it records the activity of the heart
which is made up of three physiological phenomena: a systolic rate; a diastolic stroke & a
dicrotic notch. The normal pulse rate of an average individual is 72 to 80 beats per minute.
The
tracings are the following:

a) Increase or decrease in amplitude;

b) Increase or decrease in pulse rate;
c) Increase or decrease in blood pressure;
d) Change in the position or disappearance of dicrotic notch;
e) Extra systoles –which is the premature contraction of an auricle or ventricle
while the fundamental rhythm of the heart is maintained.

INTERPRETATION & ANALYSIS OF CHARTS TAKEN IN THE PEAK OF TENSION TEST

1. Any increase or decrease to point of deception than a level tracing;

2. An increase to point of deception and then decrease;
3. A decrease to point of deception and then an increase;

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
10

4. Level tracing to point of deception and then an increase or decrease;

5. Irregular to point of deception and then a smooth tracing;
6. Smooth to point of deception and then an erratic tracing;
7. Any alteration that may take place at point of deception.

SOME FACTORS OTHER THAN SPECIFIC RESPONSE WHICH ARE CONSIDERED AS

POSSIBLE
DECEPTION

1. Degree of reaction;
2.Distribution of reactions;
3. Duration of reaction;
4. Latent period of time;
5. Rate of change of the curve;
6. Trend of gross curve.

LEGAL and ETHICAL ISSUES in POLYGRAPHY

The accuracy and reliability of lie detector test is still being questioned. Many people still do
not know that the lie detector test has been proven to be accurate like the Treasury
Department funded experiments that showed polygraph to be 90% accurate. In more recent
research, the confirmed average validity was shown to be 96%. Only 4 to 10% of the results

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
11

were declared inconclusive and almost no error.

In the Unites States, most states allow the use of polygraph test results as evidence provided
that both parties have agreed to their admissibility prior to the examination under the terms
of conditions. On the other hand, in one US state, New Mexico, polygraph evidence is
admitted in the same way as other scientific evidence.

Although lie detector test has been used in the United States and in the Asia Pacific Region
for a long time, there is still no court ruling on the admissibility of polygraph evidence in any
court proceedings in these countries. It will only become admissible if ruled on by the judge.
However, in Japan, polygraph evidence is admissible in court.

There are few cases in the U.S. that lie detector test was considered to be admissible. The
U.S. Court of Appeals declared in precedent setting decision that “the Science of Polygraph
has progressed to a level of acceptance sufficient to allow the use of polygraph evidence” on
the case of U.S. vs. Piccionnona in 1989. Same also with the case of William Daubert vs.
Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in U.S. Supreme court sometime in 1993, in which the
court adopted polygraph expert scientific testimony in federal trial. Another example is
about the U.S. vs. Scheffer trial in 1998, in which the polygraph (lie detector) provides
another accurate form of circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and found it
sufficiently
reliable to be admitted.

The public’s general opinion is that the lie detector is not allowed in court proceedings under
any circumstances. The fact is that the lie detector result is admissible in most courts in the
US. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility so it has been up to
individual jurisdictions to allow or disallow them. There are some jurisdictions that have
absolute bans on admitting polygraph results, but most allow them. The judge as well is least
likely to use lie detector test if it was administered by an unaccredited examiner. The simple
fact is that both the plaintiff and the defendant have to agree to having the results of the test
be admissible, prior to the examination being conducted. Since the results of the test are
going to hurt one party and help the other, the likelihood that both parties will agree to
admissibility before knowing how it will affect their case, is minimal. Because of this, results
of Polygraph testing are rarely admitted as evidence

In the Philippines, polygraph evidence was first discussed by the Supreme Court in 1978 in
People v. Daniel (G.R. No. L-40330 Nov. 20, 1978). In this case, the accused submitted to the
trial court the results of a polygraph test to show that he was innocent of the crime of rape.
After almost 12 years, the Supreme Court was confronted again with polygraph evidence in
People v. Adoviso, 309 SCRA 1 (1999). Pablo Adoviso was convicted of two counts of murder
by the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur. He was identified by two witnesses as the
perpetrator of the crimes. Among the evidence offered was the testimony of a polygraph
examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) who conducted a polygraph test on
Adoviso. The polygraph examiner opined that Adoviso’s polygrams revealed that there were
no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to the
investigation of the crimes. Despite this finding, the trial court found Adoviso guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage
12

(63-34)712-0420
chmsc.edu.ph
@chmscofficialpage