#Polygraph

Polygraph survey and its natural scientific foundations.

Polygraph survey and its natural scientific foundations

Kholodny Yu. I..,
Doctor of Law, Candidate of Psychological Sciences,
Head of Department, Institute of Forensic Science of the FSB of Russia

Polygraph survey and its natural scientific foundations

Source: Journal «VESTNIK KRIMINALISTIKI» 2005. Issue 1 (13), pp. 39-48.

After many decades of negative attitudes towards the possibility of using a polygraph for the purposes of preventing, solving and investigating crimes, the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» with the help of this device was «legalized» in the country in 1993. A year later, polygraph-based interviews (PBI) were officially included in the system of methods and means of domestic forensic science.

Over the past ten years, a great deal of work has been done to introduce this method into Russian law enforcement practice. An assessment of the polygraph survey from the standpoint of forensic science methodology has shown that it is one of the private methods of forensic diagnostics. The introduction of the polygraph survey into modern forensic science has led to the formation of a fundamentally new direction in forensic science, called «forensic polygraphology».

In domestic forensic science, it is generally accepted that methods recommended for use in the prevention, detection and investigation of crimes must meet a number of requirements, one of which is scientific validity.

Over the course of more than a century of practical application of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph, specialists have repeatedly attempted to provide a natural-scientific explanation and theoretical justification for the complex processes that occur in the human psyche and body and that lead to the possibility of revealing information that a person is hiding during the course of the OIP.

It should be recognized that a natural-scientific explanation of the mechanisms underlying the OIP is one of the most pressing scientific and applied problems facing the global community of scientists and specialists working in this field.

It is obvious that understanding the nature of the processes occurring in the human body and psyche during a polygraph interview is not only of scientific and theoretical interest, but is also fundamentally important from a practical point of view, since it allows this method to be made “transparent,” to increase its efficiency, and to establish scientifically sound boundaries for its application.

Insufficient attention is paid to the theory of OIP technology in Russian scientific and specialized literature. The authors of the few domestic publications on the topic of OIP, understanding the complexity of the natural science substantiation of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph, either avoid addressing this topic or offer a vulgarizing presentation of some theoretical concepts borrowed mainly from foreign scientific literature.

This article continues the work we have begun on presenting the theoretical aspects of OIP: it is devoted to the analysis of various approaches to solving this problem by foreign and domestic scientists.

By the beginning of the 90s of the 20th century, several theoretical concepts had been formed abroad (mainly in the USA), which attempted to explain with varying degrees of success how a polygraph can be used to detect a person’s lies when testing them on a polygraph.

These theoretical concepts, or, in American terminology, “polygraph theories,” can be divided into two main classes: a) theories based on motivational and emotional factors as the most important determinants of psychophysiological differentiation… and b) theories based on cognitive factors.

According to the experts of the US Congress, who conducted a special study of the complex of issues related to the use of polygraph tests, the most accepted theory at present is as follows: the person being tested with a polygraph fears the test, and this fear gives rise to pronounced physiological reactions in the case when this person answers falsely. This theory is called the threat-of-punishment theory and belongs to the first of the above classes.

In an effort to more fully reveal the essence of this theoretical concept, L. Marcy wrote: The basic theory of the polygraph is that, under certain circumstances, questions, the truth about which could have detrimental consequences for a particular subject, will activate the sympathetic nervous system and cause physiological changes that can be recorded, measured, and analyzed. For this reason, the verbal response uttered by the subject does not necessarily reflect the physiological responses demonstrated by the instrument. In other words, if the subject is asked the question, “Did you kill X…?” and he realizes at that time that he actually killed X…, a physiological response will be recorded even if the subject admits guilt and answers in the affirmative. If, however, in response to a question, the subject must falsely deny his complicity in the crime, the fear of revealing the truth (since he knows it) will cause changes in the functions of each of the systems measured and recorded by the polygraph, and will allow the operator to observe physiological reactions that (theoretically assumed and empirically demonstrated by hundreds of thousands of polygraph tests) can be correlated with lying.

If, however, the subject truthfully denies his participation in the crime, the crisis of concealment of the truth will be absent, and the question will not stimulate the sympathetic nervous system of the body to action… The absence of a reaction must mean that the subject is telling the truth; while the presence of a reaction means that he is concealing information which he believes is relevant to the question put to him.
A slightly different interpretation of the theory of threat of punishment was given by R. Davis, according to whom a lie is essentially an avoidance reaction with a significantly less than 100% chance of success, but, nevertheless, it is the only thing that has any hope of success at all. The physiological reaction will be a consequence of the avoidance reaction, which has a low probability of reinforcement, but not very low. If this theory has at least some validity, then it should be assumed that the physiological reaction is associated with a state of uncertainty. Indeed, it seems that a lie uttered with complete confidence and certainty apparently does not cause a strong reaction; however, on the other hand, there is experimental data that a lie uttered without any hope of success is also distinguished with difficulty.It is easy to see that the threat of punishment theory and both of its interpretations presented above are quite vulnerable.

Firstly, the threat of punishment theory is viewed skeptically by its critics, who believe that, according to this theory, the polygraph measures fear of testing rather than lying as such.

Secondly, it is hardly possible to unconditionally agree with the opinion about the sole predetermining role of the sympathetic nervous system in the development of physiological reactions during polygraph tests. It is known that not all changes in the body occurring at the psychophysiological level are caused by the action of this particular component of the autonomic nervous system: for example, the decrease in heart rate often observed during polygraph tests, which occurs in response to the questioned person being asked questions that are important to him, is determined not by the sympathetic, but by the parasympathetic nervous system.

Third, the threat of punishment theory creates great difficulties in explaining the high performance of experimental studies—for example, tests conducted in laboratory conditions involving guessing a conceived number or a selected card—where the threat of “damaging consequences” for lying to the experimenter is completely excluded.

Fourthly, it follows from the theory under consideration that the severity of the physiological reaction to a particular question in the process of «lie detection» is a function of the «avoidance reaction from the threat of punishment.» If this were so, then in a subject who was unaware that his reactions were being controlled, the degree of their manifestation would be minimal. However, a specially undertaken experimental study showed the inconsistency of this assumption: in those cases where it was possible to convince the subjects that the polygraph was switched off (the reactions were recorded telemetrically to an external device), it was found that no significant deterioration in the severity of physiological reactions was observed.

At the same time, it should be noted that the theory of threat of punishment finds some experimental and significant applied confirmation: as experts from the US Congress testify, the probability of revealing hidden information using the OIP method in real conditions is naturally higher than in laboratory conditions.
In addition to the theory of threat of punishment, this class of «polygraph theories» includes a concept based on the ideas of academician A.R. Luria, expressed by him in the early 20s.

Let us recall that, while studying the state of affect in criminals and summarizing a huge amount of experimental material, A. R. Luria came to the following conclusion: a state of mental trauma (as a result of a committed crime. — Yu. Kh.), complicated by the need to hide it and limited by the fear of self-exposure, creates a state of acute affective tension in the criminal; this tension most likely increases because the subject is under fear of disclosure of the crime he has committed: the more serious the crime, the more pronounced the affect and the greater the danger of its disclosure, and, consequently, the more strongly this complex is suppressed … Such tension is undoubtedly one of the most serious factors in the criminal's admission of guilt. Confession serves the criminal as a means of avoiding traces of affect, finding a way out of the created tension and relieving the affective tone that generates an unbearable conflict in him. Confession can reduce this conflict and return the personality to a certain extent to a normal state; this is precisely the psychophysiological significance of this confession.

The ideas of A.R. Luria were transformed by American researchers into a conflict theory, which establishes that strong physiological shifts will occur when two incompatible response tendencies are activated simultaneously: the tendency to tell the truth and the tendency to lie about the incident in question.
In general, the conflict theory is consistent with some experimental data, and R. Davis's assertion that detection will be easier the more the subject tries to hide his lie has been confirmed in the works of a number of researchers. In particular, laboratory experiments have demonstrated an improvement in the detection of hidden stimuli when subjects try to «fool the device,» i.e., when the conflict increases.

Some researchers, speaking in support of this theory, point out that the arousal caused by conflict during lying can be characterized as inhibitory, associated with the activation of the parasympathetic nervous system. In support of this, experimental data are provided on changes in heart rate and T-wave amplitude during the act of lying.

However, most experts admit that the conflict theory is quite vulnerable and warn against drawing far-reaching conclusions. According to R. Davis, if conflict is the basis or cause of strong reactions that denote a lie, then there is a certain danger of falling into error in connection with strong reactions caused by personal emotional problems. It is known, in particular, that words that touch on emotionally significant areas will cause strong reactions, regardless of the lie.

Moreover, from the standpoint of conflict theory, the well-known fact of the emergence of strong reactions upon presentation of mentally significant stimuli, when the subject is not required to respond at all (the so-called silent test) and the very possibility of the emergence of a conflict of opposing tendencies is practically excluded, cannot be explained.

The class of “motivational-emotional” theoretical concepts is completed by the conditioned response theory, the foundation for which was the principles discovered by I.P. Pavlov in the study of higher nervous activity.

This theory is based on the idea that critical questions elicit differential physiological responses because they are conditioned by the person being tested's past experiences. According to this approach, the more serious the crime, the stronger the responses that will be elicited by these critical questions.

Despite its apparent simplicity and obviousness, this theoretical concept is apparently even more vulnerable than the conflict theory. If we agree with this theory, then it would not seem possible to give an acceptable explanation for the psychophysiological reactions to lies in laboratory experiments where the detection rate is very high (for example, in experiments with identifying a card that the subject has chosen and is hiding).

A common drawback of the “motivational-emotional class” theories, according to leading foreign experts, is the difficulty in explaining the significant success of lie detection under mild conditions, when subjects do not have a high motivation to avoid lie detection, when there is no need to lie at all, when subjects do not try to hide significant information, and even when subjects do not suspect that their reactions are being recorded by a polygraph.

To a certain extent, this shortcoming is attempted to be eliminated by theories based on cognitive factors associated with the perception and processing of stimuli presented to the subject during the test using a polygraph.

Thus, the fourth of the “polygraph theories” is the so-called arousal theory, according to which detection occurs due to varying activation strength presented stimuli.

For the experimental justification of this theory, the concept of «knowledge of the guilty» is used. The essence of this concept is that the feature of a crime will have a special meaning only for a guilty subject, «signaling a value» that will lead to an orienting reflex that is stronger than for others (features not associated with the crime — Yu. Kh.) … It is clear that for subjects who do not have «knowledge of the guilty», all topics are equal and cause ordinary orienting reflexes that will fade with repetitions.

This is precisely what defines the “cognitive” element of activation theory, by virtue of which the emphasis is placed on the fact that the individual knows something rather than on his emotions, fears, conditioned responses, or lies.

In general, this theory is in good agreement with the results of many laboratory studies conducted in this area. In particular, the application of activation theory allows us to understand the reasons for significant differences in the effectiveness of identifying mentally significant stimuli under conditions of different levels of motivation. (It should be noted that the results of experimental studies aimed at confirming the activation theory were based, as a rule, on the recording of the galvanic skin reflex /GSR/- the only physiological indicator in relation to which foreign researchers could apply an objective quantitative assessment of the observed reactions).

Activation theory has not found wide acceptance among polygraph examiners. Leading American polygraph examiners of the 1940s-1970s, J. Reid and F. Inbau, believed that activation theory may be dominant in laboratory experiments, but in the field, the threat of punishment suppresses the effect of vigilance and attention found in the laboratory. This distinction is used by polygraph operators to explain the effectiveness of the GSR in the laboratory, but not in the field.

By conducting laboratory experiments to study reactions to neutral and significant stimuli, Israeli psychophysiologists empirically established that psychophysiological detection depends on the relative frequency of significant stimuli in the group presented to the subject during polygraph testing.

To explain the empirical rule they discovered, the researchers proposed the dichotomization theory: “according to this theory, individuals who have chosen a certain (significant) stimulus will exhibit independent habituation processes to the two classes of stimuli (neutral and significant).”
The creators of this theory (Liblich, Ben-Shahar, and others) hoped that the methodological principles developed on its basis would allow them to further divide complex sequences of stimuli into groups and, by determining the patterns of the subject's habituation to each of the groups, establish their subjective significance. However, relying on the provisions of the dichotomization theory, the researchers encountered certain contradictions in the course of their experiments.

First, the dichotomization theory predicts that in a situation where salient and neutral stimuli are equally likely (i.e. p = 0.50), it would be impossible to separate them psychophysiologically. However, in most studies using such initial conditions, the galvanic skin response (GSR) evoked by salient stimuli was greater than the GSR evoked by neutral stimuli. Second, it was found that rarely presented salient stimuli evoked larger GSR responses than neutral stimuli presented under the same conditions. In general, the dichotomization theory is very far from real polygraph tests, is applicable only to a limited range of laboratory tasks, and, according to its creators, required further research to understand the mechanisms of habituation manifested in the differentiated autonomic reactivity of individual indicators.The five “polygraph theories” discussed above were not all the attempts by foreign scientists and specialists at the turn of the 80s and 90s to create a reliable theoretical basis for the psychophysiological method of “lie detection” using a polygraph. In particular, the Canadian researcher R. Haslegrave postulated four theories to explain mental stress during lying. The information quantity theory states that higher arousal during lying occurs because more information (true and false) attracts attention and is activated in the process of lying. The difficulty return theory states that false information is more difficult to return than true information, and this increases arousal. The novelty theory postulates that an increase in mental stress occurs due to a new association of an unusual false answer with a question. As a result, R. Haslegrave comes to the conclusion that the most fruitful, from his point of view, is the conflict theory, since it is the conflict that plays the primary role during the act of lying. But some pro- and contra- of this “polygraph theory” have already been mentioned above. Thus, by the beginning of the 90s of the twentieth century. About thirteen theories have been proposed to explain why people react when they lie, but none of them has provided an explanation for all the facts that have accumulated in the practice of using the polygraph.

Leading experts from Israel and Canada have also come to a similar conclusion: G. Ben-Shahar and J. Furedi have stated that none of the theories and none of the theoretical approaches are capable of covering the entire volume of data observed during polygraph tests conducted in real and experimental conditions.

II.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the problem of the natural scientific foundations of the psychophysiological method of lie detection using a polygraph became especially relevant in the USA. Attention to this problem was due to the fact that the Department of Energy, which is responsible for the operation of nuclear power plants, decided to use screening tests on a polygraph to ensure safety when working with personnel.

At the request of the Ministry, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) was formed, the name of which reflected the task assigned to it.

After 19 months of work, the Committee, consisting of several dozen scientists who had not previously been associated with polygraph research, prepared an extensive review of the applied and theoretical aspects of modern polygraph technology in law enforcement practice. Among other things, this review paid much attention to «polygraph theories» and the study of modern views on the nature of processes in the human psyche and body that make it possible to detect lies.

As part of the review, the Committee's specialists examined and analyzed conflict theory, conditioned reflex theory, threat of punishment theory, activation theory, and dichotomization theory, combining the last three theories into a single group — theories of psychological attitude.

In addition to the above, the review considered the orientation theory, which was proposed by the Israeli researcher M. Kleiner as a general theoretical basis for polygraph testing. The orientation theory was based on the works of E. N. Sokolov on the study of the orienting reflex, published in foreign scientific literature in the 60s of the last century. Based on the concepts of «stimulus novelty» and «orienting response», M. Kleiner attempted to explain the difference in a person's response to control and verification questions in the process of his testing on a polygraph.A significant achievement of the concept proposed by the Israeli scientist was that it introduced the concept of “the significance of the stimulus” into theoretical constructs. The result of this innovation was the transition in assessing test results from the concepts of “deception indicated” and “no deception indicated” to the concepts of “significant responding” and “no significant responding”.

At the same time, the Committee’s specialists did not agree with M. Kleiner’s opinion that the orientation theory can serve as an exhaustive natural scientific justification for the technology of polygraph testing.

Firstly, they drew attention to the fact that the usual practice of preliminary discussion of questions with the person being tested (before presenting them during polygraph testing – Yu. Kh.) is controversial from the point of view of orientation theory.
Secondly, based on the orientation theory, comparative questions should have been constructed in a completely different way: instead of evoking reactions in truthful subjects, they should have been formulated in such a way as not to evoke reactions, as is the case with the test and neutral questions methodology. In general, the Committee's experts did not receive any serious arguments… that the polygraph testing procedure based on the comparative questions methodology can be explained in terms of the orientation theory.

It should be noted that, in reviewing «polygraph theories», the Committee's experts did not analyze all the theoretical concepts currently available in world practice. In particular, the Committee ignored an interesting theoretical concept of Polish polygraph examiners, which its authors called the concept of detecting memory traces.

Polish researchers, based on their accumulated experience of performing polygraph tests more than twenty years ago, came to the conclusion that «the American theory of lie detection does not provide a sufficient explanation for the physiological phenomena recorded during the tests.»

In subsequent years, Polish researchers developed their own theoretical concept of testing a person on a polygraph. From their point of view, such a test consists of four basic elements:
1. The nature of this test should reproduce memory traces.

2. The verification procedure takes into account the principles used in psychological experiments.

3. Verification is a method of criminological identification.

4. Verification aims to find information required by law enforcement agencies.

The above concept is based on the condition of detecting traces of memory of criminal offenses.
Although this theoretical concept, as follows from the published article, cannot claim to be exhaustive, nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasize the most important, from our point of view, achievement of Polish researchers made by them by the beginning of the 21st century: for the first time in foreign scientific literature on the topic of the psychophysiological method of lie detection, it was directly indicated that a polygraph test studies a person’s memory with the aim of detecting the presence (or absence) of traces of events that have criminally relevant significance.

However, let us return to the review prepared by the Committee’s specialists.

As a result of the analysis, the Committee's experts came to the same conclusion that R. Davis came to more than 40 years ago: it is possible that different theories are applicable in different situations. Dichotomization and orientation theories, for example, may be more applicable to tests in which the signal value of the stimulus is more appropriate than the threat of serious consequences of the detection process: for example, when the investigation is aimed at identifying witnesses who have knowledge of the incident, even if they are innocent. Conflict, threat of punishment, psychological set or arousal theories, on the contrary, may be more applicable to identifying individuals guilty of serious crimes or concealing dangerous plans or connections.

In 1973, G. Borland and D. Raskin stated that, unfortunately, too little research aimed at understanding the theoretical foundations had been carried out over the past half century, and therefore the polygraph had been used as a “lie detector”. Fortunately, the situation seems to be changing…

In 1983, while conducting an analysis of the situation in the area of polygraph application in various spheres of American society at the request of the US Congress, experts came to the conclusion that in order to create a comprehensive “polygraph theory”, it is first of all necessary to conduct fundamental research based on the latest achievements in psychology, physiology, psychiatry, medicine and neuroscience. Twenty years later, in 2003, the Committee's experts were also forced to conclude that a solid theoretical basis was needed to have confidence in the tests used in psychophysiological lie detection… Since the 1920s, polygraph research has focused on a few physiological responses and attempted to best fit them to the needs of practice, without doing anything to develop a scientific basis… No systematic effort has been made to establish on a theoretical basis the best physiological indicators or to develop a theory based on emerging knowledge in the fields of psychology and physiology.

As a result, the Committee on the Scientific Validity of the Polygraph came to the conclusion that the theoretical basis for the use of the polygraph is very weak.

III.

The theoretical aspects of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph first attracted the attention of scientists in the USSR in the late 1960s. An analysis of scientific and other foreign information led to the conclusion that the «polygraph theories» that existed at that time did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the nature of the phenomena observed in real and laboratory conditions. In this regard, it was proposed to consider the polygraph testing process from the standpoint of the information theory of emotions, proposed in 1965 by Academician P. V. Simonov.

According to the information theory of emotions, there is a stable dependence of the degree of emotional tension on the magnitude of the need and the difference between the necessary and available information. At the same time, the emotion itself acts as a «reflection by the human brain … of any current need (its quality and magnitude) and the probability (possibility) of its satisfaction, which the brain evaluates on the basis of … previously acquired individual experience.»

Based on this position, P. V. Simonov derived a rule for the emergence of emotions, which was expressed by the following structural formula:

Э = f [ — П, (Ин — Ис), … ]

where:
Э— emotion, its degree, quality and sign;
P — strength and quality of the current need;
(In — Is) — assessment of the probability (possibility) of satisfying the need based on acquired experience;
In — information about the means prognostically necessary for satisfying the need;
Is — information about the means that the subject has at the moment.

Based on the information theory of emotions, Simonov P. V. and Zanicheva A. A. formulated the first domestic concept of the IPT by 1970.

According to this concept, during the IPT (of any target purpose), the immediate goal of the person being tested is the need to hide information known to him and not to reveal his selective attitude to a specific fact or event (be it a criminal offense or a selected card during a game /stimulating/test).

It was assumed that the person being tested was not confident in his abilities and did not know what was happening with his physiological indicators, which the polygraph examiner assessed by recording reactions. This created a deficit of pragmatic information in the person being tested and led to the emergence of involuntary emotional reactions, accompanied by changes in the dynamics of physiological functions.

Based on the category of need, the theoretical concept gave a completely satisfactory psychological explanation of the possibility of a person using a polygraph, firstly, in field and laboratory conditions, and, secondly, in those cases when verbal answers are not required from the person being tested.

The progressiveness of this concept was that the information theory of emotions underlying it was the first to indicate a fundamentally new «neurophysiological» approach to studying the mechanisms of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph and named the main structures of the brain (the neocortex, hippocampus, amygdala) that participate in the genesis of reactions recorded during the OIP.

Along with the above-mentioned advantages, the theoretical concept proposed by Simonov P. V. and Zanicheva A. A. was not recognized as exhaustive, since it could not provide a satisfactory explanation for a number of facts observed during the IIP. In particular, from the standpoint of this theoretical concept, it is difficult to explain the presence of practically equal physiological reactions in one and the same person when presented with verification questions in a real test and during a game (with guessing a card) test, although the needs of the tested person to hide their awareness of these facts — signs of a crime and the chosen card — will be significantly different.

After the first specialized laboratory on the subject of IIP was created in the USSR in the summer of 1975, the natural scientific justification for the admissibility of using this device to identify information a person is hiding also became relevant.

The researchers drew attention to the fact that the “polygraph theories” that had been formed by the beginning of the 1980s were largely speculative and descriptive in nature and, therefore, could not serve as a fruitful basis for fundamental scientific research into the phenomenology of obtaining information from a person using a polygraph.

An analysis of foreign “polygraph theories” and the theoretical concept of Simonov-Zanicheva showed that they were created according to approximately the same scheme: first, some thesis was declared, formulated on the basis of empirical observations (for example, the theory of the threat of punishment) or scientifically established provisions (for example, the conditioned reflex theory), and then, to confirm this thesis, facts were selected from real or experimental (laboratory) practice of using the psychophysiological method of “lie detection” using a polygraph.

As a result, it was concluded that this approach is a dead end: it is impossible to provide a theoretical justification for a psychophysiological method, which is the OIP, by selecting one or another hypothesis from available psychological data and without generalizing the huge volume of experimental data accumulated by psychophysiology and neurophysiology. It is possible to build a complete theory that could explain many facts consistently observed when testing a person on a polygraph only as a result of studying psychological phenomena in relation to the neurophysiological mechanisms of brain activity.

The psychological «center» of the theory of the threat of punishment and the starting point of the theoretical concept of Simonov-Zanicheva are emotions — a special class of mental processes and states associated with needs and motives that reflect in the form of direct experience the significance for a person of certain phenomena and situations that affect him in the process of his life.

Psychological science has long established that emotions reflect a person's evaluative attitude to developing or possible situations, to their activities and/or to their manifestations in these situations.

Testing a person on a polygraph in order to reveal hidden information always occurs under a certain amount of mental stress. According to people — both those who have committed crimes and those unjustifiably suspected of such — the OIP procedure has always been subjectively significant and emotionally charged for them. This is what forced researchers to give emotions a decisive role when constructing «polygraph theories».

Without in any way denying the reality of the presence of an emotional component in the current state of a person being tested on a polygraph, domestic specialists a quarter of a century ago approached the analysis of what was happening from a slightly different position.

When explaining the essence of a polygraph test, foreign specialists usually give a more or less complete description of this procedure, and there are many examples of this. However, in none of the foreign works on the subject of the polygraph has it been possible to find a formalized definition of the phenomenon that underlies this method. At the same time, a clear definition of the phenomenon on which the OIP technology is based, and which, according to American scientists, is «probably a fundamental mechanism of psychophysiology», is certainly necessary from a theoretical, methodological and purely practical point of view.

An analysis of the technology of tests of the method of concealed information (i.e. the test for «knowledge of the guilty» and the test of the peak of tension) undertaken by domestic specialists in the late 70s — early 80s allowed them to put forward a hypothesis that there is a certain single phenomenon underlying this and other methods of testing on the polygraph. For the convenience of its further use, this phenomenon was given the conditional working name «psychophysiological phenomenon».

Psychophysiological phenomenon (PP) — if it is described from the position of the OIP technology — consists in the fact that an external stimulus (word, object, photograph, etc.), carrying significant information to a person in a specific situation about an event imprinted in his memory, stably causes a physiological reaction that exceeds the reactions to related (homogeneous) stimuli presented in the same conditions, but not related to the mentioned event and not carrying situationally significant information to a person.

The proposed definition of PP turned out to be practically useful and productive from a methodological point of view. At the same time, the emergence of this definition gave rise to at least two questions.

The first is: can this definition be considered universal?
And the second is: does this definition fully cover the phenomenon that it is supposed to describe?

To answer these questions, an analysis of works in the field of experimental and applied psychophysiology was undertaken, which made it possible to establish that the PF in the form in which it is formulated is not the “private property” of the OIP and is observed not only during polygraph testing of a person, but also under some other methodological conditions.

Firstly, the PF is consistently observed in the course of activities of persons in operator specialties (airport dispatchers, radar station operators, etc.) when performing tasks to detect, identify or classify targets, objects, etc. The PF implemented in these conditions has been studied quite well in engineering psychology, and the results of the studies are presented in the works of scientists at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In general, it can be noted that the functioning of the PF during a person's polygraph testing differs little in methodological terms from its (PF) manifestations in the conditions of operator work.

Secondly, the PF can be observed in conditions of subthreshold (subsensory) perception, when the human psyche is tested by stimuli that are subjectively significant for him, but unconscious.

Studies have shown that «the subthreshold effect of an emotional word is that the change in vegetative functions… was recorded even before the subject could read it.» The essence of this phenomenon was that «a weak sensory stimulus can cause activation of cortical neurons (which give a control signal for the appearance of changes in vegetative functions — Yu. Kh.), but the spatio-temporal parameters of this excitation may be insufficient for the stimulus to be realized.» Examples of multichannel recording of PF under these conditions are widely presented in the works carried out in the 70-80s of the twentieth century under the supervision of E.A. Kostandov.In the late 1970s, the phenomenon of subsensory perception was studied by domestic specialists from the standpoint of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection». In particular, in an experimental study (in which the author of these lines took direct part), a test for «guilty knowledge» was implemented at a subthreshold level using a tachistoscope. The experiments showed that the subject, who chose one of 5-6 two-digit numbers in the proposed series and hid this number from the experimenter in accordance with the instructions received, did not have time to examine any of them on the screen. This was confirmed by questioning the subject after the experiment. At the same time, the physiological reactions recorded using a polygraph allowed the experiment to fairly consistently detect in the studied series of numbers the one that the subject hid.

However, the greatest interest in terms of studying the mechanisms underlying the detection of hidden information in a person during polygraph testing is the form of implementation of PF in sleep conditions. More than forty years ago, American researchers «clearly demonstrated that sleeping subjects can perform complex differentiation actions in relation to sound stimuli. For example, they can distinguish significant words from insignificant ones,» and «if these words are personally significant … (they — Yu. Kh.) can cause excitation, which will be manifested in the electroencephalogram, at the vegetative and behavioral levels.»In the late 1970s, the phenomenon of subsensory perception during sleep was modeled by Russian specialists studying the psychophysiological mechanisms of the SSP. In the course of an experimental study (in which the author of the article participated), a subject in the second stage of slow sleep was presented with stimuli that were highly significant for the subject in the waking state along with neutral ones (according to the SSP technology). In this case, all the manifestations of «excitement» described by American researchers were noted, including PF, which was recorded quite stably. It was quite impressive to observe how the subject was sleeping and was not aware of the words or combinations of words reproduced from the tape recorder (and this was confirmed by a survey of the subject after his awakening), while changes in the dynamics of breathing and the cardiovascular system signaled the subjective significance of some semantic stimuli perceived by his brain for the sleeper. In particular, almost any sleeping person at this stage of sleep has reactions to his own name or to the name of some event, fact, which was very significant in the current period of his life.

The four listed variants of the implementation of PF in various methodological conditions (polygraph testing, operator activity, subsensory perception in the waking state, subsensory perception in the sleep state) showed that the above definition of this phenomenon is correct, and allowed us to make at least three important conclusions.

Firstly, the PF is indeed based on a universal neurophysiological mechanism that functions stably regardless of significantly different methodological conditions and the modality of perceived stimuli. In this regard, the position of R. Davis (in particular, supported by specialists of the Committee for the Study of the Scientific Validity of the Polygraph at the beginning of the 21st century), according to which different theories are applicable in different situations, was recognized as unpromising. The PF is an objective reality, a «fundamental mechanism of human psychophysiology». And in this regard, the PF must have a single theoretical justification, and the explanation of its mechanisms, in particular, cannot depend on this or that method used during polygraph testing.

Secondly, the implementation of the PF in subsensory perception (both in sleep and wakefulness) indicates that its neurophysiological mechanism does not depend on human consciousness and functions autonomously, beyond human will and desire. The second conclusion led to an important conclusion: if, in conditions of subsensory perception, the PF generates a stronger physiological reaction to one of the stimuli, then this stimulus has some special characteristic. This characteristic, which in the 70-80s of the last century did not attract due attention from researchers of the nature of the OIP, is the significance of the stimulus: it determines the relationship of the information contained in the stimulus to the meaning of the task solved by a person in a specific situation.

For each person, external stimuli are ranked according to their subjective significance. In the waking state, this happens consciously. In subsensory perception or during sleep, a person unconsciously reacts to stimuli that are subjectively significant for him. Such a reaction indicates that when awareness of a stimulus does not occur, the psyche continues to classify stimuli perceived from the outside according to their subjective (for the current moment of a person's life) significance.

Finally, thirdly, the implementation of PF in the conditions of subsensory perception in the waking and sleeping states (that is, when the perceived stimuli are not consciously perceived) led to the idea that the determining role in the mechanism of its implementation is played not by a person's emotions (which in principle cannot arise in the above conditions), but by his memory.

Indeed, under the specified conditions, a certain stimulus carries information about an event that is subjectively significant for a person: such a stimulus will certainly be perceived and assessed by the human psyche against his will and desire. This process will be accompanied by pronounced physiological reactions of the body, which can be observed using a polygraph. If the stimulus perceived under the same conditions is subjectively insignificant for a person, then the reaction to such a stimulus will not be of a stable, pronounced nature. The method of revealing hidden information is based, in particular, on this principle.

The most important advantage of the method of revealing hidden information is that it serves as a «reliable guarantee against erroneous accusations of the person being tested: an innocent person does not know which of the test questions is critical (i.e. verification — Yu. Kh.), and, thus, cannot react to it stably, no matter how excited or even frightened he may be.»

Based on the above-described experimental studies, data on the brain structures identified by that time, involved in the genesis of emotional states and memory, and the results of work in the field of neurophysiology obtained by the mid-80s of the last century, the author of this article, for the first time in Russian science, made an attempt to consider the neurophysiological mechanisms for the implementation of PF.

Research of those years showed that «if in the past experience of the organism a given (or similar) stimulus coincided with a certain biologically important activity, activation of memory traces occurs with the transfer of excitation to the subcortical centers of emotions and motivations corresponding to this activity. All these stages of processing stimulus information seem obvious. … The associative zones of the cortex, secondary and tertiary fields of this analyzer and the structures of the hippocampus take part in this.»

When studying possible neurophysiological mechanisms of PF, attention was drawn to the fact that the amygdala has close connections with the hippocampus, and these two structures are jointly involved in the organization of various forms of emotional behavior.

The studies allowed us to come to the hypothesis that the amygdala plays a special role in the implementation of the PF in the conditions of a person being tested on a polygraph. In particular, scientific data showed that «the amygdala plays an important, if not the main role in the assessment of such a property of signals as emotiogenicity. By labeling incoming signals based on past experience, the amygdala forms hierarchical relationships in the flow of signals… The participation of the amygdala complex in memory processes may consist in regulating the flow of signals directed for fixation and storage… The complex signal formed with its participation turns out to be significantly more resistant to the interfering influence of its own kind because it has one additional parameter — significance realized in neural signals.» Thus, as a result of theoretical and experimental studies, the author of this article in 1987 proposed a theoretical concept of targeted memory research, which provided an explanation for the mechanisms underlying the identification of information in humans during the OIP.

IV.

Memory plays a fundamental role in the mechanisms of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection», and many facts have pointed to this. From the very first experiment of «lie detection» described in the literature using laboratory devices, carried out by C. Lombroso at the end of the 19th century1, the practice of polygraph tests has prompted researchers to analyze the role of memory in the technology of this psychophysiological method. However, instead, the focus of researchers was on the state of emotional tension of a person, which he experienced when he found himself in a situation of polygraph testing. This approach brought forward the emotions of the person being tested as the most important psychological component, pushing his memory into the background.

A strong confirmation of the fact that memory is the leading mental function in identifying information that a person may be hiding using a psychophysiological method is the results of the research of L. G. Voronin and V. F. Konovalov, who, while studying the mechanisms of memory functioning in the early 70s of the last century, used elements of polygraph testing technology in their experiments.

Explaining the choice of the “lie detection” method, which was effectively banned at the time, as a research tool, the scientists pointed out that in the course of a scientific experiment “any technique that can detect changes in vegetative and other reactions that occur during the formation, storage, and interaction of conscious and unconscious emotionally charged trace phenomena” of human memory seems promising. L. G. Voronin and V. F. Konovalov came to the conclusion that “the neurophysiological basis of memory is traces of irritations that can be detected by electrographic reactions… For long-term memory (these reactions – Yu. Kh.) accompany the process of extracting information from it”. Using ECG, EEG, GSR, and other electrophysiological research methods to study memory mechanisms, the scientists discovered that “if there is a strong excitation of signaling systems that radiates to the emotional sphere of brain activity, this will be reflected in electrographic components (for example, in GSR). This is especially pronounced if emotions, together with signal systems, create that specific state of them that is usually called strong interest.”

Forensic science also led to the understanding that memory plays an important role in the mechanisms of the IPC. As is known, during the investigation of crimes, forensic science encounters traces of two classes — materially fixed traces and images, that is, «ideal traces», «imprints» of the crime event imprinted in the memory of a person.

As mentioned above, following Russian specialists and independently of them, Polish criminologists came to the same point of view. The opinion that during polygraph testing, traces of events stored in a person's memory are examined, apparently became generally accepted in Polish criminology in the mid-90s of the last century. Polish researchers, having correctly identified memory as the fundamental basis of the OIP, unfortunately, added «ideal traces» stored in memory to emotions, resulting in a modified theory of the threat of punishment.

Memory is a form of mental reflection of reality, consisting in the consolidation, preservation and subsequent reproduction of a person's experience. Linking the past with the present and the future, memory is the most important cognitive function of a person, underlying his development and learning. Modern psychophysiological science understands the function «memory» as a plurality of memory systems: long-term and short-term memory, procedural and declarative memory (the latter is divided into episodic and semantic), etc.

Now, eighteen years later, we can admit that the hypothesis put forward about the role of the amygdala in the neurophysiological mechanisms of PF turned out to be correct. As subsequent studies have shown, the participation of this structure “ensures the formation of stable and long-lasting traces of emotional memory, … “rapid and strong imprinting of emotional events in memory,” as a result of which “the trace of emotional memory is not erased and is not subject to amnesia.”

The practice of using a polygraph confirms the correctness of the scientific data obtained: during real OIPs, it was possible to identify traces of highly significant events (stored in emotional memory) in a person, removed into the past by 15-20 years.

M. Kleiner, developing the above-mentioned orientational «polygraph theory», went further than the Polish polygraph examiners: he studied the relationship between emotions and memory during the OIP, and, in particular, the relationship between memory and the formulation of test and control questions. Considering the place of memory in the OIP technology, the Israeli polygraph examiner undertook an analysis of the neural mechanisms of this function and also discovered the important role of the amygdala in the formation of emotionally colored memory traces. Moving from other initial scientific positions, M. Kleiner eventually came to judgments close to those made by domestic scientists in the late 80s.

Thus, numerous direct and indirect data obtained by researchers from various countries over the past 20-25 years clearly indicate that the fundamental mental function that is studied by the psychophysiological method of “lie detection” using a polygraph is memory.

Unfortunately, American scientists and specialists, engaged in the construction and study of «polygraph theories», did not pay attention to the study of the role of memory in the mechanisms of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection»: in none of the available serious publications on the subject of the polygraph, published over the past thirty years, could I find the rubric «memory» in the glossaries.

The theory of targeted memory testing (TMT), developed in the Russian school of polygraph examiners, is that during polygraph testing, images of events (phenomena) stored in a person's memory can be intentionally updated with the help of a target setting and, then, detected by the recorded physiological reactions that arise in response to specially selected and grouped stimuli presented to him (the person).

From the standpoint of the theory of the threat of punishment, many phenomena empirically observed during the OIP can be successfully explained. For example, with its help it becomes clear:

the high efficiency of TNP in laboratory conditions (which was difficult to explain from the standpoint of the theory of the threat of punishment) and the severity of the recorded reactions in those cases when the person being tested did not know about the registration being carried out (which was also inexplicable from the standpoint of «avoiding the threat of punishment»);
the reason for the intensity of reactions recorded during the silent test (which could not be understood from the standpoint of conflict theory) or in laboratory conditions (where the conditioned reflex theory “stumbled”);
the nature of the “activation force” of the stimuli presented during the TNP process, with the help of which, under the influence of a targeted setting, activated traces of human memory are studied (the activation theory could not indicate what and where is activated in the human psyche);
the need for preliminary discussion of questions with the person being tested before presenting them during polygraph testing, which contradicted the provisions of the orientation theory, and a number of other facts.

Thus, the theoretical concept of targeted memory testing, in our opinion, creates a solid basis for a completely understandable explanation and acceptable natural scientific justification of the mechanisms that ensure an assessment of the reliability of information received from a person as a result of his polygraph testing.

Literature.

Belyushina O. V., Ladchenko A. G. Polygraph in the Sphere of Business. Moscow: NOU SHO «Bayard», 2004. 118 p.
Varlamov V. A., Varlamov G. V. Psychophysiology of Polygraph Tests. Krasnodar: 2000. 239 p.
Vinogradova O. S. Hippocampus and Memory. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. 333 p.
Voronin L. G., Konovalov V. F. Electrographic Trace Processes and Memory. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. 166 p.
Danilova N. N. Psychophysiology. Moscow: Aspect Press. 1999. 373 p.
Natural Science Foundations of Psychology. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1978. 368 p.
Zhurin S. I. Practice and Theory of Using Lie Detectors. Moscow: Goryachaya Liniya – Telecom, 2004. 143 p.
Zubrilova I. S., Skripnikov A. I. Use of the Polygraph in Solving Crimes by Internal Affairs Agencies. Lecture Course. Moscow: VNII MVD, 1999. 117 p.
Ivanitsky A. M., Strelets V. B., Korsakov I. A. Information Processes of the Brain and Mental Activity. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 200 p.
Kostandov E. A. Perception and emotions. Moscow: Medicine. 1977. 247 p.
Kostandov E. A. Conscious and unconscious forms of higher nervous activity of man //Mechanisms of human brain activity. Part 1. Human neurophysiology/Ed. N. P. Bekhterev. Leningrad: Science. 1988. Pp. 491-526.
Kostandov E. A. On the physiological mechanisms of «psychological defense» and unconscious emotions //The Unconscious. Tbilisi: Metzniereba. 1978. Vol. 1. Pp. 633-651.
Methods of diagnosing mental states and analyzing human activity/Under the general editorship of L. G. Dika. Moscow: IP RAS, 1994. 206 p.
The amygdala complex (connections, behavior, memory). Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1981. 229 p.
Mitrichev V. S., Kholodny Yu. I. Polygraph as a means of obtaining orienting forensic information //Notes of criminalists. 1993. Issue 1. Pp. 173-180.
Petrov A. M., Myagkikh S. G. From the notebook of a polygraph examiner. Perm: 2003. 202 p.
Podshibyakin A. S., Kholodny Yu. I. On the clarification and supplementation of objects of forensic diagnostics //Russian legal doctrine in the 21st century: problems and ways of their solution: Scientific-practical. conf. (October 3-4, 2001). Saratov, 2001. Pp. 225-227.
Psychology. Dictionary. Moscow: Publishing house of political literature, 1990. 494 p.
Simonov P. V. On the role of emotions in the adaptive behavior of living systems //Questions of psychology. 1965. No. 4. Pp. 75-84.
Simonov P. V. Higher nervous activity of man. Motivational-emotional aspects. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. 173 p.
Simonov P. V. Emotional brain (physiology, neuroanatomy, psychology of emotions). Moscow: Nauka, 1981. 211 p.
Simonov P. V., Ershov P. M. Temperament. Character. Personality. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 160 p.
Hessett J. Introduction to psychophysiology. Moscow: «Mir», 1981. 248 p.
Kholodny Yu. I., Saveliev Yu. I. The problem of using polygraph tests: an invitation to discussion //Psychological journal. 1996. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 53-69.
Kholodny Yu. I. Polygraph Application in Crime Prevention, Detection, and Investigation. Moscow: Mir Bezopasnosti, 2000. 160 p.
Kholodny Yu. I. Polygraph Interview and Mental Reflection //Bulletin of the Volga State University. Series «Jurisprudence». Tolyatti, 2001. Issue 18. Pp. 205-209.
Kholodny Yu. I. Forensic Polygraph Science and Its Application in Law Enforcement Practice //Information Bulletin No. 21. Moscow: Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 2003. Pp. 14-19.
Chepurnov S. A., Chepurnova N. E. The amygdaloid complex of the brain. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1981. 256 p.
Yanig V. The autonomic nervous system //Human physiology. Nervous system. Moscow: «Mir», 1985. Vol. 1. Pp. 167-219.
Abrams S. A The Complete Polygraph Handbook. Lexington Books, 1989. 267 p.
Ben-Shakhar G. A further study of the dichotomization theory in detection of information //Psychophysiology. 1977. Vol. 14. Pp. 408-413.
Ben-Shakhar G., Lieblich I. The dichotomization theory for differential auto-nomic responsivity reconsidered //Psychophysiology. 1982. V. 20. P. 277-281.
Ben-Shakhar G., Furedy J. Theories and applications in the detection of de-ception. A psychophysiological and international perspective. Springer-Verlag New-York Inc., 1990. 192 rub.
Barland G. The polygraph test in the USA and elsewhere //The polygraph test. Lies, Truth and Science. London.: SAGE Publications, 1988. P. 73-95.
Barland G.H., Raskin D.C. Detection of deception //Electrodermal activity in psychological research. N-Y.: Academic Press, 1973. P. 419-477.
Davis R.C. Physiological responses as a means of evaluating information //The manipulation of human behavior/A.D. Biderman & H. Zimmer (Eds.). N-Y.: Wiley, 1961. P. 142-168.
Dixon N. Subliminal perception. London.: McGraw-Hill. 1971. 363 p.
Feldman H. Lie detection manual. (A workbook — textbook). Franklin Lakes: Allison Press, 1982. RUR 201
Gordon N. J., Fleisher W. L. Effective interviewing and interrogation tech-niques. San Diego.: Academic press, 2002. 173 p.
Gustafson L., Orne M. Effects of heightened motivation on the detection of deception //J. of Applied Psychology. 1963. V. 47. P.408-411.
Gustafson L., Orne M. Effects of perceived role and role seccess on the detection of deception. //J. of Applied Psychology. 1965. V. 49. P. 412-417.
Heslegrave R. An examination of the psychological mechanisms underlying deception //Psychophysiology. 1982. V. 19. P. 323.
Heslegrave R., Furedy J., Matyas T. Studies on the validity and utility of T-wave amplitude //Psychophysiology. 1982. V. 19. P. 323.
Horneman C., O'Gorman J. Detectability in the card test as a function of the subject's verbal response //Psychophysiology. 1985. V. 22. no. 3. P. 330-333.
Horvath F., Reid J. The polygraph silent answer test //J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. 1972. V. 63. P. 285-293.
Kleiner M. Physiological detection of deception in psychological perspectives: a theoretical proposal //Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San-Diego: Academic Press, 2002. P. 127-182.
Krzy?cin A. The Debate Over Polygraph in Poland //Polygraph. 2000. V. 29. No. 3. P. 226-236.
Luria A.R. The nature of human conflicts. N-Y.: Liverwright, 1932. 164 rub.
Lykken D. Psychology and the lie detection industry //American Psychologist. 1974. V. 29. P. 728.
Matte J. A. Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph //N-Y.: J. A. M. Publications, 1996. 793 p.
Nagle D.E. The polygraph in employment: applications and legal considerations //Polygraph. 1985. V. 14. No. 1. P. 1-33.
Orne M.T., Theckrey R.I., Paskevitz D.A. On detection of deception. A model for the study of physiological effects of psychological stimuli //Handbook of psycho-physiology.- N-Y.: Holt Inc., 1972.- P.743-785.
Oswald I., Taylor F., Treisman M. Discriminative responses to stimulation during human sleep //Brain. 1960. V. 83. P. 440-453.
Reid J., Inbau F. Truth and deception. The polygraph («lie-detector») tech-nique. Baltimore.: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1977 (2nd edit.). 430 p.
Polygraphs and Security. A study by a Subpanel of Scandia’s Senior Scientists and Engineers. October 21, 1999. 25 p.
Scientific validity of polygraph testing: a research review and evaluation — a technical memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1983. 132 rub.
Sokolov E. N. Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. N-Y.: McMillan, 1963.
Sokolov E. N. Orienting reflex as information regulator //Cognition and Categorization/Rosch E. and Lloyds B. (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, 1966. P. 79-98.
Thackray R., Orne M. A comparison of physiological indices in detection of deception //Psychophysiology. 1968. V. 4. P. 329-339.
The accuracy and utility of polygraph testing (Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.) //Polygraph. 1984. No. 1. P. 1-143.
The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. 398 p.
Trovillo P. V. A history of lie detection //J. of Criminal Low and Criminology. 1939. V. 29. no. 6. P. 848-881.
Wariographia kryminalistyczna. Wydawnictwo Wyzszej Szkoly Policji, Szczytno, 1998. 141 RUR

Polygraph testing and its scientific basis.

Polygraph survey and its natural scientific foundations.