Nathan J. Gordon, Feroze B. Mohamed, Steven M. Platek, Harris Ahmad, J. Michael Williams and Scott H. Faro
The Integrated Zone Comparison Technique (IZCT) was utilized with computerized polygraph instrumentation and the Academy for Scientific Investigative Training’s Horizontal Scoring System ASIT PolySuite algorithm, as part of a blind study in the detection of deception. This paper represents a synergy analysis of combining fMRI only deception data with each of the three individual physiological parameters that are used in polygraph. They include the electro-dermal response (EDR), pneumo, and cardio measurements. In addition, we compared the detection accuracy analysis using each single parameter by itself. The fMRI score and each individual polygraph parameter score on individual subjects were averaged to establish an overall score.
Gordon N., Cochetti P. The Horizontal Scoring System. Polygraph 1987, 16, 2.
Gordon N., Fleisher W. Academy for Scientific Investigative Training’s Horizontal Scoring System and Examiner’s Algorithm for Chart Interpretation. Polygraph 1999, 28, 1.
Gordon N., Fleisher W. Effectiveness of the Integrated Zone Comparison Technique (IZCT) with Various Scoring Systems in a Mock Crime Experiment by Students. European Polygraph 2012, 6, 1 (19).
Gordon N., Fleisher W., et al. A Field Study of
 Gordon N., Cochetti P., The Horizontal Scoring System, Polygraph, 1987, 16, 2, pp. 118–125.
 ASIT PolySuite is a manually driven computerised algorithm for analysing polygraph data.
APA Ad-hoc Committee, Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques, Polygraph 2011, 44 (4), pp. 194–305.
Gordon N., Cochetti P., The Horizontal Scoring System, Polygraph, 1987, 16, 2, pp. 118–125.
Matte J.A., Forensic Psychophysiology, Using the Polygraph, J.A.M. Publications, 1996
 Matte J.A., 1996, Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph, New York, 373–390.
 Swinford J., 1999, Manually Scoring Polygraph Charts Utilizing the Seven-Positioning Numerical Analysis Scale at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, “ Polygraph”, 28, 1, 10–27.
 Ansley N., Krapohl D. 2000, The Frequency of Appearance of Evaluative Criteria in Field Polygraph Charts, “Polygraph”, 29, 2, 169–176.
 Matte J.A, Reuss R. 1992, A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Physiological Data in Field Polygraph
Widacki M. 2014, Aktualny standard badań poligraficznych a praktyka polska, [in:] J. Widacki (ed.), Badania poligraficzne w Polsce, Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, Krakow, p. 193.
Konieczny J. 2010, Polygraph examination as scientific evidence, European Polygraph 3 (13), pp. 129-135.
Leśniak M., Zubańska M., A comparison of polygraph examination accuracy rates obtained using the seven-position numerical analysis scale and the Objective Scoring System (a study on the Polish population), European Polygraph 2
Ansley N., Weir R. (1976): a numerical scoring system for Relevant-Irrelevant polygraph tests. Paper presented at the 1976 Annual Seminar of the American Polygraph Association.
Barland G.H. (1988): Th e polygraph test in the USA and elsewhere. In A. Gale (Ed.) Th e polygraph test: Lies, truth and science. Sage Publications, London.
Blackwell N.J. (1999): Polyscore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examinations from actual criminal investigations
The polygraph is an instrument that detects, monitors, and records physiological responses that are allegedly of psychological origin and attributed to deception. Hence the human mind and its complex psychology are the core of the detected physical responses. However, the polygraph industry has almost entirely overlooked psychological issues in its training and publishing. The industry focuses its attention and interest on various technical aspects of the test such as e.g. scoring, rather than concentrating on what is most important, i.e. the examinee’s psychology, as it is responsible for almost the entire test result. The paper extensively explains the importance of examinee psychology and its influence on test outcome, points to the shortfalls in training and publication activity of the industry, and discusses the result and impact of the industry’s approach.
of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique. Polygraph, Vol. 36, No. 2. 84–90.
Matte, J. A. (July 2010). A field study of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique’s Either-Or Rule and scoring system versus two other scoring systems when relevant question elicits strong response. European Polygraph, Vol. 4, No. 2(12).
Matte, J. A. (2011). Psychological aspects of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique and attendant benefits of its Inside-Track. European Polygraph , Vol. 5, No. 2(16).
Matte, J. A
Akehurst L., Bull R., Vrij A., Koehnken G., (2004), Th e eff ects of training professional groups and lay persons to use Criteria-Based Content Analysis to detect deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 877.
Blandon-Gitlin I., Pezdek K., Lindsay S.D., Hagen L. (2009), Criteria-Based Content Analysis of true and suggested accounts of events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 901.
Buck J.A., Warren A.R., Betman S.I., Brigham J.C. (2002), Age diff erences in criteria-based content analyses scores in