Although some proponents and combined-method studies argue that polygraphs and physiological markers can detect deception, scientific consensus views their validity as highly contested due to susceptibility to countermeasures, high error rates in certain populations, and a lack of robust generalization.
Evidence for · 2
Handbook of polygraph testing.
2002 · cited by 258
This handbook outlines various structured polygraph and concealed information methodologies used in applied settings.
Evidence against · 4
Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.
2017 · cited by 282
While reaction time differences exist, the authors highlight high heterogeneity and a vulnerability to countermeasures.
See more details
More for · 1
Single-trial lie detection using a combined fNIRS-polygraph system
2015 · cited by 103
Combining traditional polygraph measures with functional neuroimaging shows enhanced accuracy in detecting single-trial deception.
More against · 3
DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT: A REVIEW AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS
1979 · cited by 50
Critical analysis notes significant limitations in generalizing polygraph validity from criminal contexts to other screening uses.
Psychopathy and Physiological Detection of Concealed Information: A review
2006 · cited by 30
The review questions the validity of physiological deception detection when applied to individuals with psychopathy.
RCIT: An RSVP-Based Concealed Information Test Framework Using EEG Signals
2022 · cited by 12
This study suggests that traditional polygraphs often suffer from low accuracy and countermeasure vulnerabilities, prompting alternative EEG frameworks.