[
Abrams S. (1977), A survey of attitudes on the guilt complex technique, Polygraph, 6(1), 123–124.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abrams S. (1984), The penile plethysmograph: A new transducer used for detection and therapy with sexual deviation cases, Polygraph, 13(2), 198–201.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abrams S. (1991), The directed lie control question, Polygraph, 20(1), 26–31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Abrams S. (1999), A response to Honts on the issue of the discussion of questions between charts, Polygraph, 28(3), 223–228.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Amsel T.T. (1999), Exclusive or nonexclusive comparison questions: A comparative field study, Polygraph, 28(4), 273–283.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (1963a), Anticlimax dampening concept, Military Police Journal, Oct, 22–23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (1963b), Total chart minutes concept, Law and Order, 11(10), 77–79.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (1963c), Standardized polygraph notepack and technique guide: Backster zone comparison technique, Backster: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (1964), Outside “super-dampening” factor, Military Police Journal, Jan, 20–21.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (2001a), Comments on Krapohl & Ryan “Belated look at symptomatic questions”, Polygraph, 30(3), 213–215.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Backster C. (2001b), A response to Donald Krapohl’s assessment of the Total Chart Minutes Concept, Journal of the American Association of Police Polygraphists, 1, 32–34.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barland G.H., Honts C.R. & Barger S.D. (1989), The validity of detection of deception for multiple issues, Psychophysiology, 26(4a Supplement), 13 (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barland G.H., Raskin & D.C. (1975), Psychopathy and detection of deception in criminal suspects, Psychophysiology, 12, 224 (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Battelle Memorial Institute (2007), Effi cacy of prototype credibility assessment technologies: PCASS fi nal report, Prepared for the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment. GS-23F-0011L. Ref No. MC-RRT-06-0036.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bell B.G., Raskin D.C., Honts C.R. & Kircher J.C. (1999), The Utah Numerical Scoring System, Polygraph, 28(1), 1–9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ben-Shakhar G. (1977), A further study of the dichotomization theory in detection of information, Psychophysiology, 14(4), 408–413.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Benussi V. (1914), Die atmungssymptome der lüge (The respiratory symptoms of lying), Archiv fuer die Gesamte Psychologie, 31, 244–273.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blackwell N.J. (1998), PolyScore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examination from actual criminal investigations, DTIC AD Number A355504/PAA. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. McClellan, AL. Printed in Polygraph, 28(2) 149–175.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blalock B. (2009), Capitalizing on technology to increase standardization and reliability in a polygraph examination, Polygraph, 38(2), 154–166.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blalock B., Cushman B. & Nelson R. (2009), A replication and validation study on an empirically based manual scoring system, Polygraph, 38(4), 281–288.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bradley M.T. & Janisse M.P. (1981), Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures, Psychophysiology, 18(3), 307–315.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Burtt H.E. (1918), A pneumograph for inspiration-expiration ratios, Psychological Bulletin, 15(10), 325–328.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Burtt H.E. (1921), The inspiration/expiration ratio during truth and falsehood, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 1–23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Butta M.R., Hong M.J., Kim Y. & Hong K. (2015), Single-trial lie detection using combined fNIRS-polygraph system, Frontiers in Psychology, 6:707, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00709
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capps M.H. (1991), Predictive value of the sacrifice relevant, Polygraph, 20(1), 1–6.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capps M.H, Knill B.L. & Evans R.K. (1993), Effectiveness of the symptomatic questions, Polygraph, 22(4), 285–298.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capps M.H. & Ansley A. (1992), Comparison of two scoring scales, Polygraph, 21(1), 39–43.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cooley-Towell S., Pasini-Hill D. & Patrick D. (2000), The value of the post-conviction polygraph: The importance of sanctions, Polygraph, 29(1), 6–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Damphousse K.R., Pointon L., Upchurch D. & Moore R.K. (2007), Assessing the validity of voice stress analysis tools in a jail setting, Final report to the US Department of Justice. University of Oklahoma.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Darrow C.W. (1932), The behavior research photopolygraph, Journal of General Psychology, 7, 215–219.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 125 1.Ed 2d 469.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dawson M.E. (1980), Physiological detection of deception: Measurement of responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers, Psychophysiology, 17(1), 8–17.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dollins A.B., Cestaro V.L. & Pettit D.J. (1998), Efficacy of repeated psychophysiological detection of deception testing, Journal of Forensic Science, 43(5), 1016–1023.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dollins A.B., Krapohl D.J. & Dutton D.W. (1999), A comparison of computer programs designed to evaluate psychophysiological detection of deception examinations: Bakeoff 1, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. Jackson, SC. DoDPI99-R-0001, DTIC # ADA 379990.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Driscoll L.N., Honts C.R. & Jones D. (1987), The validity of the positive control physiological detection of deception technique, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(1), 46–50.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dutton D.W. (2000), Guide for performing the objective scoring system, Polygraph, 29(2), 177–184.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dutton D.W. (2000), Introduction, Polygraph, 29(1), 1–5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Easterbrook J.A. (1959), Th e effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior, Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ekman P. (1992), Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, W.W. Norton & Co.: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elaad E. & Ben-Shakhar G. (1991), Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11(2), 99–108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elkins A., Bolob E., Nunamaker J., Burgoon J. & Derrick D. (2014, Oct), Appriasing the AVATAR for Automatic Border Control. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/questions/reponses_qe/2019/002653/P9_RE(2019)002653(ANN3)_XL.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
English K., Pullen S. & Jones L. (eds.) (1996), Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach, American Probation and Parole Association: Lexington, KY.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farwell L.A. & Donchin E. (1988), Event-related potentials in interrogative polygraphy: Analysis using bootstrapping, Psychophysiology, 25(4), 445 (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farwell L.A. & Donchin E. (1991), The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials, Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531–547.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fleiss J.L. (1971), Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters, Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gardner J.W. (1937), An experimental study of the Luria technique for detecting mental conflict, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(6), 495–506.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gastwirth J.L. (1987), The statistical precision of medical screening procedures: Applications to polygraph and AIDS antibody test data, Statistical Science, 2(3), 213–238.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Geddes L.A. (1974), What does the photoplethysmograph indicate?, Polygraph, 3(2), 167–176.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ginton A. (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – A new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT poly-graph, Polygraph, 38(3), 204–217.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon N.J. (1999), The Academy for Scientific Investigative Training’s horizontal scoring system and examiner’s algorithm system for chart interpretation, Polygraph, 28(1), 56–64.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon N.J. & Cochetti P.M. (1982), The positive control concept and technique, Polygraph, 11(4), 330–342.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon N.J. & Cochetti P.M. (1987), The horizontal scoring system, Polygraph, 16(2), 116–125.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon N.J., Fleisher W.L., Morsie H., Habib W. & Salah K. (2000), A field validity study of the Integrated Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 29(3), 220–225.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon J.J, Mohamed F.B., Faro S.H., Platek S.M., Ahmad H. & Williams J.M. (2005), Integrated zone comparison polygraph technique accuracy with scoring algorithms, Physiology & Behavior, 87(2), 251–254.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Green D.M. & Swets J.A. (1988), Signal detection theory and psychophysics, Peninsula Publishing: Los Altos, CA.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. (2006), Utah Probable Lie Comparison Test, Polygraph, 35(3), 139–149. Handler M. (2010), An EDA primer for polygraph examiners, Polygraph, 39(2), 68–108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. & Honts C.R. (2007), Psychophysiological mechanisms in deception detection: A theoretical overview, Polygraph, 36 (4), 221–232.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. & Krapohl D.J. (2007), The use and benefits of the photoelectric plethysmograph in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 36(1), 18–25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. & Nelson R. (2007), Polygraph terms for the 21st Century, Polygraph, 36(3), 157–164.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. & Nelson R. (2008), The Utah approach to comparison question poly-graph testing, European Polygraph, 2(2).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M., Nelson R. & Blalock B. (2008), A focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs, Polygraph, 37(2). 100–111.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M., Nelson R., Krapohl D.J. & Honts C.R. (2010), An EDA primer for poly-graph examiners, Polygraph, 39(2), 68–108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M., Reicherter J., Nelson R. & Fausett C. (2009), A respiration primer for polygraph examiners, Polygraph, 38(2) 130–144.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M. & Reicherter J. (2008), Respiratory blood pressure fluctuations observed during polygraph examinations, Polygraph, 37(4), 256–262.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M., Rovner L. & Nelson R. (2008), The concept of allostasis in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 37(3), 228–233.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Handler M.D., Shaw P. & Gougler M., (2010), Some thoughts about feelings: A study of the role of cognition and emotion in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 39(3), 139–154.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harnsberger J.D., Hollien H., Martin M.D. & Hollien K.A. (2009), Stress and deception in speech: Evaluating Layered Voice Analysis, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 642–650.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harrell J.P. & Clark V.R. (1985), Cardiac responses to psychological tasks: Impedance cardiographic studies, Biological Psychology, 20(4), 261–283.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harwell E. (2000), A Comparison of 3- and 7-position scoring scales with field examinations, Polygraph, 29(2), 195–197.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Heil P., Ahlmeyer S., McCullar B. & McKee B. (2000), Integration of polygraph testing with sexual offenders in the Colorado Department of Corrections, Polygraph, 29(1), 26–35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Holden E.J. (2000), Pre- and post-conviction polygraph: Building blocks for the future – Procedures, principles and practices, Polygraph, 29(1), 69–115.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hollien H. & Harnsberger J. (2006), The use of voice security evaluations, Th e Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7(2), 74–78.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (1987), Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(3), 204–209.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (1999), The discussion of questions between list repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy, Polygraph, 28(2), 117–123.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (2000), A brief note on the misleading and the inaccurate: A rejoinder to Matte (2000) with critical comments on Matte and Reuss (1999), Polygraph, 29(4), 321–325.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application, Journal of General Psychology, 123(4), 309–324.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. & Amato S.L. (2002), Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, pp. 151–264. Academic Press: London.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R., Amato S.L. & Gordon A. (2000), Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test. Final report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no. N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. & Devitt M.K. (1992), Bootstrap decision making for polygraph examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. McClellan, AL. DoDPI92-R-0002.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. & Driscoll L.N. (1987), An evaluation of the reliability and validity of rank order and standard numerical scoring of polygraph charts, Polygraph, 16(4), 241–257.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. & Kircher J.C. (1994), Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 252–259.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. & Schweinle W. (2009), Information gain in psychophysiological detection of detection in forensic and screening settings, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 161–172.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horowitz S.W., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R. & Raskin D.C. (1997), The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 34(1), 108–115.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1972), The polygraph silent answer test, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science, 63(2), 285–293. Reprinted in Polygraph, 11(1), 100–113.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1977), Th e effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 127–136.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1978), An experimental comparison of the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 338–344.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1979), Effect of different motivational instructions on detection of deception with the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 323–330.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1988), The utility of control questions and the effects of two control question types infield polygraph techniques, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 198–209.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. (1994), The value and effectiveness of the sacrifice relevant question: An empirical assessment, Polygraph, 23(4), 261–279.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F.S. & Palmatier J.J. (2008), Effect of two types of control questions and two question formats on the outcomes of polygraph examinations, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 889–899.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Howland D.P. (1981), Positive control question technique pre-test interview and chart interpretation, Polygraph, 10(1), 37–41.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Iacono W.G. (1991), Can we determine the accuracy of the polygraph tests? In: J.R. Jennings, P.K. Ackles & M.G.H. Coles (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, 4, 202–208. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ishida J. & Sevilla C.M. (1981), The friendly polygrapher concept and admissibility, Polygraph, 10(3), 175-178.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jones E.E. & Sigall H. (1971), The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude, Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 349–364.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Karpman B. (1949), Lying – A minor inquiry into the ethics of neurotic and psychopathic behavior, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40(2), 135–157.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C., Kristjansson S.D., Gardner M.K. & Webb A. (2005), Human and computer decision-making in the psychophysiological detection of deception. Final report to the U.S. Department of Defense. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C., Packard T., Bell B.G. & Bernhardt P.C. (2003), Effects of deception on tonic autonomic arousal, Polygraph, 32(3), 166–187.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1983), Clinical versus statistical lie detection revisited – through a lens sharply, Psychophysiology, 20(4), 452.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1987), Comment: Base rates and the statistical precision of polygraph tests in various applications, Statistical Science, 2(3), 226–238.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1988), Human versus computerized evaluations of poly-graph data in a laboratory setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291–302.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C., Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (1984), Electrodermal habituation in the detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 21(5), 585 (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C., Raskin D.C., Honts C.R. & Horowitz S.W. (1995), Lens model analysis of decision making by field polygraph examiners, Psychophysiology, 32 S1, S45 (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kircher J.C., Woltz D.J., Bell B.G. & Bernhardt P.C. (2006), Effects of audiovisual presentations of test questions during Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph examinations and new measures, Polygraph, 35(1), 25–54.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kozel F.A., Johnson K.A., Grenesko E.L., Laken S.J., Koze S., Lu X., Pollina D., Ryan A. & George M.S. (2009), Functional MRI detection of deception after committing a mock sabotage crime, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(1), 220–231.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (1996), A taxonomy of polygraph countermeasures, Polygraph, 25(1), 35–56.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (1998), A comparison of 3- and 7- position scoring scales with laboratory data, Polygraph, 27(3), 210–218.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (2020), A brief comment on the inhalation/exhalation ratios in poly-graph scoring, Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice, 49(2), 79–81.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (2000, Oct), An assessment of the Total Chart Minutes Concept with field data, Journal of the American Association of Police Polygraphists, 4, 31–37.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (2001), A brief rejoinder to Matte and Grove regarding “psychological set”, Polygraph, 30(3), 203–205.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. (2005), Polygraph decision rules for evidentiary and paired-testing (Marin Protocol) applications, Polygraph, 34(3) 184–192.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Cushman B. (2006), Comparison of evidentiary and investigative decision rules: A replication. Polygraph, 35(1), 55–63.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. & Ryan A.H. (2001), The Rank Order Scoring System: Replication and extension with field data, Polygraph, 30(3), 172–181.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., Gordon N.J. & Lombardi C. (2008). Accuracy demonstration of the Horizontal Scoring System using field cases conducted with the Federal Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 37(4). 263–268.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., Grubin D., Benson T. & Morris B. (2020), Modification of the AFMGQT to accommodate single-issue screening: The British One-issue Screening Test, Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: Journal of Science and Field Practice, 49(2), 176–183.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & McManus B. (1999), An objective method for manually scoring poly-graph data, Polygraph, 28(3), 209–222.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., McCloughan J.B. & Senter S.M. (2006), How to use the Concealed Information Test, Polygraph, 35(3), 123–138.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Norris W.F. (2000), An exploratory study of traditional and objective scoring systems with MGQT field cases. Polygraph, 29(2), 185–194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Ryan A.H. (2001), A belated look at symptomatic questions, Poly-graph, 30(3), 206–212.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., Shull K.W. & Ryan A.H. (2002, July), Does the confession criterion in case selection inflate polygraph accuracy estimates?, Forensic Science Communications.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Stern B.A. (2003), Principles of multiple-issue polygraph screening a model for applicant, post-conviction offender, and counterintelligence testing, Polygraph, 32(4), 201–210.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J. & Trimarco J.R. (2005), Credibility assessment methods for the new century, National Academy Associate, 7(1), 8–9, 24, 32.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lacey J.I. (1967), Somatic response patterning and stress: Some revisions of activation theory. In: M.H. Appley & Trumbull (eds.), Psychological Stress. Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Landis C. & Wiley L.E. (1926), Changes of blood pressure and respiration during deception, Journal of Comparative Psychology, 61(1), 1–19.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Larson J.A. (1923), The cardio-pneumo-psychogram in deception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6(6), 420–454.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li F., Zhu H., Xu J., Gao Q., Guo H., Wu S., Li X. & He S. (2018), Lie detection using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions discriminates infrequent but not frequent liars, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12:71, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00071
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Luria A.R. (1930), The method of recording movements in crime detection, Zeitschrift Fuer Angewandte Psychologie, 35, 139–183. (Text in German).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lykken D.T. (1959), The GSR in the detection of guilt, Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2), 123–128.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lykken D.T. (1998), A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Plenum Trade: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lynch B.E. & Henry D.R. (1979), A validity study of the psychological stress evaluator, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 11(1), 89–94.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MacLaren V. & Taukulis H. (2000), Forensic identification with event related potentials, Polygraph, 29(4), 330–343.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MacLaren V. (2001), A qualitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 674–683.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mangan D.J., Armitage T.E. & Adams G.C. (2008), A field study on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique, Physiology & Behavior, 95, 17–23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marey P.E.J. (1885), Méthode Graphique Dans Les Sciences Expérimentales Et Principalement En Physiologie Et En Médecine. G. Masson: Paris.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marin J. (2000), He said/She said: Polygraph evidence in court, Polygraph, 29(4), 299–304.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marin J. (2001), The exclusionary standard and the “Litigation Certificate” program, Polygraph, 30(4), 288–293.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marston W.M. (1917), Systolic blood pressure symptoms of deception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(2), 117–163. Reprinted in Polygraph, 14(4), 289–320. Marston W.M. (1938), The lie detector test. Richard R. Smith: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (1976), A polygraph control question validation procedure, Polygraph, 5(2), 170–177.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph: Scientifi c truth verifi cation – Lie detection, J.A.M Publications: Williamsville, NY.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (2000), Examination and cross-examination of experts in forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph, J.A.M. Publications: Williamsville, NY.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (2001), Comments on Krapohl & Ryan criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans research, Polygraph, 30(3), 216–217.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (2002), 2002 supplement – Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph, J.A.M. Publications: Williamsville, NY.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. & Grove R.N. (2001), Psychological set: Its origin, theory and application, Polygraph, 30(3), 196–202.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1989), A field validation study of the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 18(4), 187–202.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1998), An analysis of the psychodynamics of the directed-lie control question in the control question technique, Polygraph, 27(1), 56–67.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1990), A field study of the “friendly polygraphist” concept, Polygraph, 19(1), 1–8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meehl P.E. & Rosen A. (1955), Antecedent probability and the effi ciency of psycho-metric signs, patterns, and cutting scores, Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194–216. Meiron E., Krapohl D.J. & Ashkenazi T. (2008), An assessment of the Backster “Either-Or” rule in polygraph scoring, Polygraph, 37(4), 240–249.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Miller J.C. (1994), Cardiovascular indices of guilty knowledge. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. McClellan, AL. DoDPI94-R-0016. DTIC AD Number A305954.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Minor P. (1985), The modifi ed relevant/irrelevant (MRI) technique. Paper presented at the 20th annual seminar of the American Polygraph Association, Reno, NV.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mosso A. (1896), Fear. Translated from the fifth edition of the Italian by E. Lough and F. Kiesow. Longsmans, Green and Co.: London.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Murphy K.R. (1987), Detecting infrequent deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 611–614.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nelson R., Krapohl D. & Handler M. (2008), Brute-force comparison: A Monte Carlo study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and human polygraph scorers, Polygraph, 37(3), 185–215.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ohnishi K., Matsuno K., Arasuna M. & Suzuki A. (1976), The objective analysis of physiological indices in the field detection of deception, Reports of the National Institute of Police Science, 29, 181–188.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of laboratory research for the detection of deception, Polygraph, 2(3), 169–199.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Osugi A. (2011), Daily application of the Concealed Information Test: Japan. In: Verschuere, Ben-Shakhar & Meijer (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge University Press: New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
O’Sullivan M. (2003), The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: Th e boy who cried wolf effect, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316–1327
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Patrick C.J. & Iacono W.G. (1989), Psychopathy, threat and polygraph test accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 347–355.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Patrick C.J. & Iacono W.G. (1991), Validity of the control question polygraph test: Th e problem of sampling bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 229–238.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pavlidis I., Eberhardt N.L. & Levine J.A. (2002), Seeing through the face of deception, Nature, 415, 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Petty R. & Cacioppo J. (1981), Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches, William C. Brown: Dubuque, IA.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Podlesny J.A. (1993), Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations?: A review of FBI case records, Crime Laboratory Digest, 20(3), 57–61.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Podlesny J.A. & Raskin D.C. (1978), Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 15, 344–358.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Podlesny J.A. & Truslow C.M. (1993), Validity of an expanded-issue (modified general question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed-crime-roles context, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 788–797. Reprinted in Polygraph, 23(3), 195–218.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollina D.A., Horvath F., Denver J.W., Dollins A.B. & Brown T.E. (2008), Development of technologies and test formats for credibility assessment. In: A.M. Columbus (ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, 58, 1–36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollina D. & Ryan A.H. (2003), The relationship between facial skin surface temperature reactivity and traditional polygraph measures used in the psychophysiological detection of deception: A preliminary investigation. DoD Polygraph Institute, Ft. Jackson, SC. DoDPI02-R-0007. DTIC AD Number: ADA414911.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pollina D. (2006), Emerging methods and measures for detecting stress and deception: Th ermal imaging, Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7(2), 108–115.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C. (1976), Reliability of chart interpretation and sources of error in polygraph examinations. Report No. 76-3, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice (Contract No. 75-NI-99-0001). Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C. & Hare R.D. (1978), Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population, Psychophysiology, 15, 126–136.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (2002), The comparison question test. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, pp. 1–47. Academic Press: London.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R. & Horowitz S.W. (1988), A study of the validity of polygraph examinations in criminal investigation. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reali S.F. (1978), Reali’s positive control technique: A new concept of polygraph procedures, Polygraph, 7(4), 281–285.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reid J.E. & Inbau F.E. (1977), Truth and deception: The polygraph (“lie detector”) technique, (2nd ed.). Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reed S. (1994), A new psychophysiological detection of deception examination for security screening, Psychophysiology, 31(Supplement 1), S80, (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rosenfeld J.P. (1998), Event-related potentials in detection of deception, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 30(1), 27. (Abstract).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rothwell J., Bandar Z., O’Shea J.D. & McLean D. (2006), Silent talker: A new computer-based system for the analysis of facial cues to deception, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6). 757–777.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ruch F.L. (1948), Psychology and Life, Scott Foresman: Chicago.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Runkel J.E. (1936), Luria’s motor method and word association in the study of deception, Journal of General Psychology, 15, 23–37.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Senter S.M. & Dollins A.B. (2002), New decision rule development: Exploration of a two-stage approach. (DoDPI01-R-0006). Fort Jackson, SC: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Senter S.M., Waller J. & Krapohl D.J. (2008), Air Force Modified General Question Test validation study, Polygraph, 37(3), 174–184.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Senter S.M., Waller J. & Krapohl D.J. (2009), Validation studies for the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS), Polygraph, 38(2), 115–129.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Senter S.M., Weatherman D., Krapohl D.J. & Horvath F.S. (2010), Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 39(2), 109–1 17.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shurany T., Stein E. & Brand E. (2009), A field study on the validity of the Quad-ri-Track Zone Comparison Technique, European Polygraph, 1(7), 5–23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stern B.A. & Krapohl D.J. (2003), The infamous James Alphonso Frye, Polygraph, 32(3), 188–199.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Summers W.G. (1939), Science can get the confession, Fordham Law Review, 8, 334–354.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swets J.A. (1995), Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swets J.A., Dawes R.M. & Monahan J. (2000), Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(1), 1–26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swinford J. (1999), Manually scoring polygraph charts utilizing the seven-position numerical analysis scale at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Polygraph, 28(1), 10–27.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thorndike E.L. (1920), A constant error on psychological rating, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tian F., Sharma V., Kozel F.A. & Liu H. (2009), Functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate hemodynamic responses to deception in the prefrontal cortex, Brain Research, 120–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.09.085
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Timm H.W. (1982), Analyzing deception from respiration patterns, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(1), 47–51.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Timm H.W. (1991), Effect of posthypnotic suggestions on the accuracy of preemployment polygraph testing, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(5), 1521–1535.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Trovillo P.V. (1939), A history of lie detection, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29(6), 848–881 and 30(1), 104–119. Reprinted in Polygraph, 1, 46–74 and 151–160.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Van Herk M. (1990), Numerical evaluation: Seven point scale +/-6 and possible alternatives: A discussion, The Newsletter of the Canadian Association of Police Polygraphists, 7(3), 28–47.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vendemia J.M.C. (2002), Hobson’s choice: The relationship between consequences and the comparison question, Polygraph, 31(1), 20–25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Veraguth S. (1906), Das psycho-galvanische Reflexphänomen, Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, Bd. XXI, Heft 5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Verschuere B., Ben-Shakhar G. & Meijer E. (2011), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test, Cambridge University Press: New York. Waller J.F. (2001), A concise history of the comparison question, Polygraph, 30(3), 92–195.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weaver R.S. (1985), Effects of differing numerical chart evaluation systems on poly-graph examination results, Polygraph, 14(1), 34–42.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Webb A.K., Honts C.R., Kircher J.C., Bernhardt P. & Cook A.E. (2009), Effectiveness of pupil diameter in a probable-lie comparison question test for deception, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 279–292.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Webb A.K., Hacker D.J., Osher D., Cook A.E., Woltz D.J., Kristjansson S. & Kircher J.C. (2009), Eye movements and pupil size reveal deception in computer administered questionnaires, Foundations of Augmented Cognition, Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5638, 553–562.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weir R.J. (1976), Some principles of question selection and sequencing for Relevant-Irrelevant testing, Polygraph, 5(3), 207–222.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Winter J. (1936), Comparison of the cardio-pneumo-psychograph and association methods in the detection of lying in cases of theft among college students, Journal of Applied Psychology, 20(2), 243–248.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yankee W.J. (1992), A case for forensic psychophysiology and other changes in terminology. Paper presented to Advisory Committee, Director of Counterintelligence; and to the DASD(CI&SCM). Reprinted in Polygraph, 23(3), 188–194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yankee W.J. (1995), The current status of research in forensic psycho-physiology and its application in the psychophysiological detection of deception, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(1), 63–68.
]Search in Google Scholar
