Nervous system, reflexes and reaction time
n Reflexes
n Voluntary action
n Autonomous reflex
reflex.gif polygraph pavlovs_dog

Nervous system
nCentral NS – brain, spinal cord
nPeripheral NS – spinocerebral nerves
nSomatic NS
¨somatic sensory and somatic motor system; somatic reflexes
¨Affects skeletal muscle tissue
nAutonomic NS
¨Involuntary; visceral reflexes
¨sympaticus/parasympaticus
¨Viscelar system: affects cardiac muscle, smooth muscles, exocrine glands
spine_cord-BB.jpg

Reflexes
nA reflex, or reflex action, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to
stimulus
n Fast, stereotypic, automatic reaction of NS, without direct involvement of the brain
nReflex arc:
1.Somatic receptor (e.g. heat receptor or muscle spindle = stretch receptors of muscles)
2.Afferent nerve fibers (muscles → dorsal horn of the spinal cord)
3.Integrating center (gray matter of the spinal cord or brainstem)
4.Efferent nerve fibres (ventral horn of the spinal cord → muscles)
5.Effector (e.g. Neuromuscular junction of skeletal muscle)
image028

eflexy jsou zpravidla rychlé, stereotypní, automatické reakce nervového systému bez bezprostředního
řízení z nejvyšších mozkových center. Probíhají tedy autonomně - bez nutnosti vědomého řízení.
Podnět zaznamenaný receptorem se aferentní drahou dostane do CNS, kde je přes větší nebo menší
množství interneuronů zpracován a rozveden k dalším souvisejícím okruhům. Z motorického neuronu
vede eferetní vlákno k efektoru (např. svalu).
Reflexní oblouk (Obr. 1) je základní funkční jednotkou nervového systému a ve své nejjednodušší
podobě má jen 2 neurony a je monosynaptický. Reflexy v motorickém systému zajišťují udržování
svalového napětí (tonus), opěrnou motoriku a zajišťují řadu automatických ochranných reakcí.

Reflexes
nInnate lifelong reflexes - an automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus
¨protective reflexes – sneezing, coughing, corneal,  pharyngeal, blink, withdrawal reflex,...
¨Posture reflexes – tendon reflexes (patellar reflex), stretch reflexes, ...
nSpecial infant reflexes – crawl, grasp, suck, moro, ... video
n
nConditional reflexes – type of a learning procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus (e.g.
food) is paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. a bell); temporary
¨I. P.  Pavlov – dogs: sallivation + sound
¨Taste aversion (nausea + food)
n
pavlov_dog1.jpg brooks2

Obsah obrázku jídlo, přísada, Kuchyně, Prodej ovoce a zeleniny Popis byl vytvořen automaticky
Taste aversion
Obsah obrázku kresba, skica, umění, ilustrace Popis byl vytvořen automaticky

Somatic (motoric) control system
n1. Reflexes
¨Maintaining posture and balance by muscle tone
¨Myotatic reflexes – strecth reflexes, tendon reflexes (e.g. knee jerk reflex)
¨Association with cerebellum, inner ear
¨Reaction time 20 – 40 msec
n
n2. Voluntary action and motorics
¨Somatic system of voluntary action
¨Cerebral cortex, basal ganglia and other centres
fig0211 http://messybeast.com/images/selfrighting.png

brain-side.jpg
nskeletal muscles control - CNS + peripheral nerves; cooperation and coordination (↑↑ chemical
synapses)
nExteroreceptor → Sensoric pathway → brain processing through the sensoric centre of the brain and
motoric centre of the brain → motoric pathway → muscles
n
n
n
n
n
n
nReaction time of voluntary action ≥100ms
Voluntary action
Výsledek obrázku pro false start

Reakční dobou rozumíme čas nereflexní, vědomě řízené reakce, který uplyne od okamžiku zapůsobení
podnětu po motorickou odpověď. Smyslový podnět je na cestě od receptoru mnohonásobně na synapsích
přepojován než dorazí do sensorického centra mozkové kůry (somatosensorického, sluchového,
zrakového atd.). Od okamžiku vstupu do vědomí uplyne další čas nutný ke vzniku impulzu v motorické
kůře a k jeho cestě přes nižší motorická centra do efektoru (svalu). Takto volně řízená reakce je
mnohem pomalejší než reakce reflexní.
Cíle úlohy
Změření reakční doby na zrakový podnět
Metodika
Na webové adrese: http://www.yenka.com/freecontent/item.action?quick=5i# spustíme aplikaci měřící
čas, který uplyne od objevení se zrakového podnětu po stisknutí klávesy. Zaznamenáme reakční čas a
srovnáme s údajem při reflexní reakci.

Experiment 1 - Reaction time comparison
¨Electrodes on the calf muscle, special hammer, software
¨
¨Monosynaptic reflex (achilles reflex) - tap on Achilles tendon with special hammer → reflexive
calf muscle locomotion
¨A sudden stretch, tapping the Achilles' tendon, causes a reflex contraction in the muscle as the
spindles sense the stretch and send an action potential to the motor neurons which then cause the
muscle to contract; this particular reflex causes a contraction in the group of muscles.
¨ T = 20-40ms
¨Voluntary action – voluntary locomotion of calf muscle after the tap of hammer on shoulder
¨ T  ≥ 100ms
¨
¨

Web task reaction time or here
Experiment 2
Reaction time of voluntary action

scared_cat.png
Autonomous reflexes
¨Visceral, involuntary
¨Under the control of hypothalamus
¨Sympaticus + parasympaticus
¨Connection with limbic system and amygdala – emotions: breath frequency, heart beat, sweating,
salivating, ...
¨
¨Much slower than motoric reflexes
¨
nCrucial for smooth muscle, glands and heart functions
¨

Úvod
Nervové vegetativní řízení pracuje autonomně, bez zásahů z vědomí. Jeho povaha je také reflexní, i
když reakce jsou pomalejší než u motorických reflexů. Vegetativní řízení, jehož nejvyšším centrem
je hypotalamus, je ovšem také v propojeno s mozkovou kůrou, která je nejvyšším centrem vědomých
vjemů a reakcí. Vědomě prožívané stavy mají proto svou odezvu ve změně vegetativních reakcí
(frekvence dechu, srdce, pocení, žaludku, svěračů atd.).
Cíle úlohy
Demonstrace změny kožní vodivosti – tzv. detektor lži
Metodika
Učitel na dobrovolníkovi demonstruje záznam vodivosti pokožky. Sledujeme promítaný záznam. Pokusná
osoba má za úkol myslet na zvolené číslo od 1 do 10 a na všechna navržená čísla od zkoušejícího
odpovídá „ne“. Pokusíme se podle reflexní reakce změny kožní vodivosti nalézt zvolené číslo,
zakreslíme záznam odpovědí do protokolu a pozorované zdůvodníme.

Rest & digest system
Fight-or-flight reaction
antagonists




Polygraph (lie detector test)
nStress caused by lying → cerebral cortex + hypothalamus + limbic system → sympaticus → hand
sweating (etc.) → higher conductivity → higher graph amplitude on record
n
n
n
n
n
nIn most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are generally not considered reliable evidence and are
not generally used by law enforcement.
polychart Pinocchio_3ak Výsledek obrázku pro polygraph

Detektor lži aneb polygraf - Rubrika kecy
Detektor lži (odborně polygraf) je docela šikovná věcička, která s téměř stoprocentní úspěšností
dokáže určit, zda tázaná osoba mluví pravdu nebo ne.
V USA se běžně používá už od roku 1926 a je neustále vyvíjen a zdokonalován a jeho úspěšnost
neustále stoupá. Do Česka se dostal v šedesátých letech minulého století a od začátku let
osmdesátých je používám policií.
Klasickým detektorem lži se sleduje pět základních ukazatelů: dýchání, frekvence tepu, kožní odpor,
krevní tlak a změny charakteru svalového chvění v hlase. Za pozitivní je pak považována taková
reakce, která proběhne nejméně ve třech z těchto pěti naměřených hodnot. Všechny otázky jsou
postaveny tak, aby umožňovaly jednoznačnou odpověď, tedy buď ano nebo ne. Celé vyšetření trvá sto
dvacet maximálně sto padesát minut.
V České republice je bohužel fyziodetekční vyšetření postaveno na principu dobrovolnosti, což
znamená, že jeho odmítnutí nemá a nemůže mít pro podezřelou osobu žádné negativní důsledky. Dále
platí zásada, že vyšetřovaná osoba může kdykoliv vyšetření přerušit či ukončit a nemusí uvádět
důvody, proč se tak rozhodla. Dotazovaný navíc musí mít všechny otázky napsané několik týdnů před
testováním.
K výsledkům testů na detektoru lži soudy v České republice přihlížejí, někdy je ale odmítají. Nelze
však odsoudit kohokoliv pouze na základě výsledků z detektoru. Vždy musí být další důkazy, což je
samozřejmě dobře.
Detektor lži pomáhá především tím, že dokáže nasměrovat pátrání správným směrem, zúžit počet
předběžně podezřelých, naznačit místa, kde by se měli hledat další důkazy a celkově dokáže
vyšetřování značně urychlit.
V Česku se detektor lži používá v mnoha desítkách případů ročně a jeho účinnost je velmi vysoká.
Škoda, že politici, kteří si zakládají na svém charakteru, pravdomluvnosti a čestnosti se v případě
jakéhokoliv obvinění (třeba z přijímání úplatků) detektoru lži bojí a vždy odmítnou testování,
přestože je to často jediný způsob, jak při situaci "slovo proti slovu" poodkrýt skutečnou pravdu.
A polygraph (popularly referred to as a lie detector) is an instrument that measures and records
several physiological responses such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin conductivity
while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions, on the theory that false answers will
produce distinctive measurements. The polygraph measures physiological changes caused by the
sympathetic nervous system during questioning. Within the US federal government, a polygraph
examination is also referred to as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination.
Several other technologies are also used in the field of lie detection, but the polygraph is the
most famous. An example of a different method which is commonly used is a device which monitors the
response of the individual's eye. If the iris contracts suddenly, this could indicate that the
person is lying.
Polygraphs are in some countries used as an interrogation tool with criminal suspects or candidates
for sensitive public or private sector employment. The use and effectiveness of the polygraph is
controversial, with the manner of its use and its validity subject to increasing criticism.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Testing procedure
3 Reliability
4 Countermeasures
5 2003 National Academy of Sciences report
6 Admissibility of polygraphs in court
6.1 United States
6.2 Europe
6.3 Canada
6.4 Australia
6.5 Israel
6.6 India
7 Use with espionage and security clearances
8 Hand-held lie detector for U.S. military
9 Use with sex offenders
10 Polygraph in popular culture
11 See also
12 Notes
13 Further reading
14 External links
[edit] History
The idea that lying produces physical side-effects has long been claimed. In West Africa persons
suspected of a crime were made to pass a bird's egg to one another.^[^citation needed^] If a person
broke the egg, then he or she was considered guilty, based on the idea that their nervousness was
to blame. In ancient China the suspect held a handful of rice in his or her mouth during a
prosecutor's speech.^[^citation needed^] Since salivation was believed to cease at times of
emotional anxiety, the person was considered guilty if by the end of that speech the rice was dry.
Early devices for lie detection include an 1885 invention of Cesare Lombroso used to measure
changes in blood pressure for police cases, a 1914 device by Vittorio Benussi used to measure
breathing, and an abandoned project by American William Marston which used blood pressure and
galvanic skin response to examine German prisoners of war.^[1]
A device recording both blood-pressure and galvanic skin response was invented in 1920 by Dr. John
A. Larson of the University of California and first applied in law enforcement work by the Berkeley
Police Department under its nationally renowned police chief August Vollmer. Further work on this
device was done by Leonarde Keeler.^[2]
Makenzie wrote a second paper on the concept in 1915, when finishing his undergraduate studies. He
entered Harvard Law School and graduated in 1918, re-publishing his earlier work in 1917.^[3]
According to their son, Marston's wife, Elizabeth Holloway Marston, was also involved in the
development of the systolic blood-pressure test: "According to Marston’s son, it was his mother
Elizabeth, Marston’s wife, who suggested to him that 'When she got mad or excited, her blood
pressure seemed to climb' (Lamb, 2001). Although Elizabeth is not listed as Marston’s collaborator
in his early work, Lamb, Matte (1996), and others refer directly and indirectly to Elizabeth’s work
on her husband’s deception research. She also appears in a picture taken in his polygraph
laboratory in the 1920s (reproduced in Marston, 1938)."^[4]^[5] The comic book character, Wonder
Woman by William Marston (and influenced by Elizabeth Marston^[6]^[7] ) carries a magic lasso which
was modelled upon the pneumograph (breathing monitor) test.^[8]^[6]
Marston was the self proclaimed “father of the polygraph” despite his predecessor's contributions.
Marston remained the device's primary advocate, lobbying for its use in the courts. In 1938 he
published a book, The Lie Detector Test, wherein he documented the theory and use of the
device.^[9] In 1938 he appeared in advertising by the Gillette company claiming that the polygraph
showed Gillette razors were better than the competition.^[10]^[11]^[12]
[edit] Testing procedure
The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. Today, polygraph examiners use
two types of instrumentation: analog and computerized. In the United States, most examiners now use
computerized instrumentation.
A typical polygraph test starts with a pre-test interview to gain some preliminary information
which will later be used for "Control Questions", or CQ. Then the tester will explain how the
polygraph is supposed to work, emphasizing that it can detect lies and that it is important to
answer truthfully. Then a "stim test" is often conducted: the subject is asked to deliberately lie
and then the tester reports that he was able to detect this lie. Then the actual test starts. Some
of the questions asked are "Irrelevant " or IR ("Is your name Michael Legaspi?"), others are
"probable-lie" Control Questions that most people will lie about ("Have you ever stolen money?")
and the remainder are the "Relevant Questions ", or RQ, that the tester is really interested in.
The different types of questions alternate. The test is passed if the physiological responses
during the probable-lie control questions (CQ) are larger than those during the relevant questions
(RQ). If this is not the case, the tester attempts to elicit admissions during a post-test
interview, for example, "Your situation will only get worse if we don't clear this up".^[13]^[14]
Criticisms have been given regarding the validity of the administration of the Control Questions
test (CQT). The CQT may be vulnerable to be conducted in an interrogation-like fashion. This kind
of interrogation style would elicit a nervous response from innocent and guilty suspects alike.
There are several other ways of administrating the questions.
An alternative is the Guilty Knowledge test (GKT), or the Concealed Information Test (CIT). The
administration of this test is given to prevent potential errors that may arise from the
questioning style. The test is usually conducted by a tester with no knowledge of the crime or
circumstances in question. The administrator tests the participant on their knowledge of the crime
that would not be known to an innocent person. For example: “Was the crime committed with a .45 or
a 9 mm?” The questions are in multiple choice and the participant is rated on how they react to the
correct answer. If they react strongly to the guilty information, then proponents of the test
believe that it is likely that they know facts relevant to the case. This administration is
considered more valid by supporters of the test because it contains many safeguards to avoid the
risk of the administrator influencing the results. ^[15]
[edit] Reliability
There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.^[16]^[17] Despite
claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an
inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997
survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better
than chance.^[18] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a
significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would
unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United
States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence
is reliable” and “Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the
jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene,
a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion...”.^[19] Also, in 2005 the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the
scientific community”.^[20] Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, states
that polygraph interrogations give a high rate of false positives on innocent people.^[21] In 2001
William G. Iacono, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and
Director, Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University of
Minnesota, published a paper titled “Forensic “Lie Detection": Procedures Without Scientific Basis”
in the peer reviewed Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. He concluded that
Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce
confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on
naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and
(b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions.
Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these
conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts
et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense
attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there
is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific
organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of
the claims made by polygraph proponents. ^[22]
Polygraph tests have also been criticized for failing to trap known spies such as double-agent
Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.^[23]^[24] Other
spies who passed the polygraph include Karl Koecher,^[25] Ana Belen Montes,^[26] and Leandro
Aragoncillo.^[27] Pseudoscience debunker Bob Park said, "The polygraph, in fact, has ruined
careers, but never uncovered a single spy."^[28] Polygraph examination and background checks also
failed to detect Nada Nadim Prouty, who was not a spy but was convicted for improperly obtaining US
citizenship and using it to obtain a restricted position at the FBI.^[29]
Prolonged polygraph examinations are sometimes used as a tool by which confessions are extracted
from a defendant, as in the case of Richard Miller, who was persuaded to confess largely by
polygraph results combined with appeals from a religious leader.^[30]
[edit] Countermeasures
Several countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described. Asked how he passed
the polygraph test, Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet handler and received the
simple instruction to: "Get a good night's sleep, and rest, and go into the test rested and
relaxed. Be nice to the polygraph examiner, develop a rapport, and be cooperative and try to
maintain your calm." However, it has been alleged that Ames may have also taken tranquilizers to
affect his reaction to the relevant questions during his polygraph interrogations.^[31]
Other suggested countermeasures include for the subject to mentally record the control and relevant
questions as the examiner reviews them prior to commencing the interrogation. Once the
interrogation begins, the subject is then supposed to carefully control their breathing during the
relevant questions, and to try to artificially increase their heart rate during the control
questions, such as by thinking of something scary or exciting or by pricking themselves with a
pointed object concealed somewhere on their body. In this way the results will not show a
significant reaction to any of the relevant questions.^[32]^[33]
[edit] 2003 National Academy of Sciences report
The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost since the introduction of the device. In
2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled “The Polygraph and Lie
Detection”. The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was " Unreliable, Unscientific
and Biased" (quote). The NAS study identified 57 of the 80 odd research studies that the APA relies
on, to come to their conclusions. These studies concluded that a polygraph test regarding a
specific incident can discern the truth at “a level slightly greater than chance, yet short of
perfection”. The report also concluded that this level of accuracy was overstated and the levels of
accuracy shown in these studies "are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of
specific-incident testing in the field.”^[34]
When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in national security matters and for law enforcement
agencies for example) the level of accuracy drops to such a level that “Its accuracy in
distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to
justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.” In fact, the NAS
extrapolated that if the test were sensitive enough to detect 80% of spies (a level of accuracy
which it did not assume), in a hypothetical polygraph screening of 10,000 employees including 10
spies, 8 spies and 1,598 non-spies would fail the test. Thus, roughly 99.6 percent of positives
(those failing the test) would be false positives. The NAS concluded that the polygraph “...may
have some utility”^[35] but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test
could have extremely high accuracy."^[36]
The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United States Congress Office of Technology
Assessment report "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and
Evaluation”.^[37]
[edit] Admissibility of polygraphs in court
[edit] United States
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the
discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains
controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex
offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),^[38] the old Frye standard was lifted
and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which
"underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the
facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no
defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998),^[39]
the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be
admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense
attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey,
Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain
employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection
Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for
pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.^[40]
In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under
certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front
of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).
In 2007, in Ohio v. Sharma, an Ohio trial court overruled the objections of a prosecutor and
allowed a polygraph examiner to testify regarding a specific issue criminal examination. The court
took the position that the prosecutors regularly used a polygraph examiner to conduct criminal
tests against defendants, but only objected to the examiner's testimony when the results
contradicted what they hoped to achieve.^[41] Dr. Louis Rovner[8], a polygraph expert from
California, tested the defendant and testified as an expert witness both at a pretrial
admissibility hearing and at trial. The defendant, who had been charged with sexual battery, was
acquitted.^[42]
[edit] Europe
In most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not
generally used by police forces. However, in any lawsuit, an involved party can order a
psychologist to write an opinion based on polygraph results to substantiate the credibility of its
claims. The party must bear the expense themselves, and the court weighs the opinion like any other
opinion the party has ordered. Courts themselves do not order or pay for polygraph tests. An
example of this practice would be a rape trial in which the defendant tries to fortify one's
testimony by submitting themselves to a polygraph session.
[edit] Canada
In Canada, the polygraph is regularly used as a forensic tool in the investigation of criminal acts
and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations. In the 1987
decision of R. v. Béland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as
evidence in court. This decision did not however affect the use of the polygraph in criminal
investigations. The polygraph continues to be used as an investigative tool.
[edit] Australia
The High Court of Australia has not yet considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence.
However, the New South Wales District Court rejected the use of the device in a criminal trial. In
Raymond George Murray 1982 7A Crim R48 Sinclair DCJ refused to admit polygraph evidence tending to
support the defence. His Honour rejected the evidence because
The veracity of the accused and the weight to be given to his evidence, and other witnesses called
in the trial, was a matter for the jury.
The polygraph "expert" sought to express an opinion as to ultimate facts in issue, which is
peculiarly the province of the jury.
The test purported to be expert evidence by the witness who was not qualified as an expert, he was
merely an operator and assessor of a polygraph. The scientific premise upon which his assessment
was based had not been proved in any Court in Australia.
Devoid of any proved or accepted scientific basis, the evidence of the operator is hearsay which is
inadmissible.
The Court cited, with approval, the Canadian case of Phillion v R 1978 1SCR 18.
[edit] Israel
The High Court of Israel, in Civil Appeal 551/89 (Menora Insurance Vs. Jacob Sdovnik), ruled that
as the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device, polygraph results are inadmissible
as evidence in a civil trial. In other decisions, polygraph results were ruled inadmissible in
criminal trials. However, some insurance companies attempt to include a clause in insurance
contracts, in which the beneficiary agrees that polygraph results be admissible as evidence. In
such cases, where the beneficiary has willingly agreed to such a clause, signed the contract, and
took the test, the courts will honor the contract, and take the polygraph results into
consideration. Interestingly, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people who signed such
contracts to refuse to take the test. Depending on whether or not the beneficiary signed an
agreements clause, and whether the test was already taken or not, such a refusal usually has no ill
effects; At worst, the court will simply order the person to take the test as agreed. At best, the
court will cancel the clause and release the person from taking the test, or rule the evidence
inadmissible.
[edit] India
Recently an Indian court adopted the brain electrical oscillations signature test as evidence to
convict a woman, who was accused of murdering her fiance. It is the first time that the result of
polygraph was used as evidence in court.^[43]
[edit] Use with espionage and security clearances
The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. In the American military and
intelligence communities, polygraphs have been administered both as terms of qualifying for a
security clearance and as part of a periodic reinvestigation to retain a clearance. There is no
uniform standard for whether the polygraph is needed, as some methods of adjudication do not demand
a successful polygraph test to earn a clearance. Other agencies, particularly certain military
units, actually prohibit polygraph testing on their members.
It is difficult to precisely determine the effectiveness of polygraph results for the detection or
deterrence of spying. Failure of a polygraph test could cause revocation of a security clearance,
but it is inadmissible evidence in most federal courts and military courts martial. The polygraph
is more often used as a deterrent to espionage rather than detection. One exception to this was the
case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995,
Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability
of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph
test later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction. In most
cases, however, polygraphs are more of a tool to "scare straight" those who would consider
espionage. Jonathan Pollard was advised by his Israeli handlers that he was to resign his job from
American intelligence if he was ever told he was subject to a polygraph test. Likewise, John
Anthony Walker was advised to by his handlers not to engage in espionage until he had been promoted
to the highest position for which a polygraph test was not required, to refuse promotion to higher
positions for which polygraph tests were required, and to retire when promotion was mandated.^[44]
As part of his plea bargain agreement for his case of espionage against the Soviet Union, Robert
Hanssen would be made to undergo a polygraph at any time as part of damage assessment. In Hanssen's
25-year career with the FBI, not once was he made to undergo a polygraph. He later said if he had
been ordered; he may have thought twice about espionage.
Alternatively, the use of polygraph testing, where it causes desperation over dismissal for past
dishonesty, may encourage spying. For example, Edward Lee Howard was dismissed from the CIA after
during a polygraph screen, he truthfully answered a series of questions admitting to minor crimes
such as petty theft and drug abuse. The CIA failed to see that the firing was an action that would
logically anger Howard, and in retaliation for his perceived unjust punishment for minor offenses,
he later sold his knowledge of CIA operations to the Soviet Union.^[45]
It is also worth noting that polygraph tests may not deter espionage. From 1945 to the present, at
least six Americans had been committing espionage while they successfully passed polygraph tests.
Two of the most notable cases of two men who created a false negative result with the polygraphs
were Larry Wu-Tai Chin and Aldrich Ames.
In August 2008, the US Defense Intelligence Agency announced that it would subject each of its
5,700 prospective and current employees to a polygraph interrogation at least once annually.^[46]
[edit] Hand-held lie detector for U.S. military
A hand-held lie detector is being deployed by the U.S. Defense Department, according to a report in
2008 by investigative reporter Bill Dedman of msnbc.com. The Preliminary Credibility Assessment
Screening System, of PCASS, captures less physiological information than a polygraph, and uses an
algorithm, not the judgement of a polygraph examiner, to render a decision whether it believes the
person is being deceptive or not. The device will be used first in Afghanistan by U.S. Army troops.
The law states that it could only legally be used on non-U.S. persons. ^[47]
[edit] Use with sex offenders
Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states of the United States and it is often
a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the
testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given
by sex offenders if they have committed a further offense with new victims. These statements are
then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to
prison for having violated his or her probation.
A significant number of Federal appeals courts have upheld polygraph testing for Federal
probationers as well. The most recent decision was by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding
a New York sex offender.
The UK will soon allow compulsory polygraph tests for convicted sex offenders released on
license.^[48]^[49]
[edit] Polygraph in popular culture
Lie detection has a long history in mythology and fairy tales; the polygraph has allowed modern
fiction to use a device more easily seen as scientific and plausible. Notable instances of
polygraph usage include uses in crime and espionage themed television shows and some daytime
television talk shows, cartoons and films. The most notable polygraph TV show is Lie Detector,
which first aired in the 1950s created and hosted by Ralph Andrews. Then in the 1960s Ralph
produced a series of specials hosted by Melvin Belli, then in the 1970s hosted by Jack Anderson. In
1998 TV producer Mark Phillips with his Mark Phillips Philms & Telephision put Lie Detector back on
the air on the FOX Network -- on that program Dr. Ed Gelb with host Marcia Clark cleared Mark
Fuhrman from the allegation that he "planted the bloody glove." Later Phillips produced Lie
Detector as a series for PAX/ION -- some of the guests included Paula Jones, Reverend Paul Crouch
accuser Lonny Ford, Ben Rowling, Jeff Gannon and Swift Boat Vet Steve Garner.
FOX has taken this one step further with their game show The Moment of Truth which pits people's
honesty against their own sense of modesty, propriety, etc. Contestants are given a polygraph test
administered by a polygraph expert in a pre-screening session answering over 50 questions. Later
they must sit in front of a studio audience including their friends & family for the televised
portion of the show. There they need only answer 21 answers truthfully "as determined by the
polygraph" to win $500,000. The questions get more personal and/or more revealing as they advance.
Most polygraph experts caution that the polygraph techniques used on Moment of Truth do not conform
to any known or accepted methods of polygraphy.^[^citation needed^]
Daytime talk shows, such as Maury Povich, frequently uses lie detectors in order to tell if someone
is cheating on their significant other.
In the movie Ocean's 13, one of the characters beats a polygraph test by stepping on a tack when
answering truthfully, which supposedly raises the polygraph's readings for the truthful answers so
they equal to the deceptive ones.
In episode 109 of the popular science show Mythbusters, they attempted to fool the polygraph by
using pain to try and increase the readings when answering truthfully (so the machine will
supposedly interpret the truthful and non-truthful answers as the same.) They also attempted to
fool the polygraph by thinking happy thoughts when lying and thinking stressful thoughts when
telling the truth to try and confuse the machine. However, neither technique was successful and the
examiner Michael Martin correctly identified each guilty and innocent subject. The show also noted
the widely held opinion that, when done properly, polygraphs are correct 80-99% of the time.^[50]

EXPERIMENT 3
Polygraph experiment
1.Put the electrodes on palms (do not moisture), keep eyes closed, keep calm and think about one
particular number from 1 to 5
2.Audience question about numbers in random order
3.After being asked, say No to every single question
nDo not forget: Autonomous reflexes are much slower, therefore be patient about physiological
response
n
n