|

October 1999 Volume 1 Number
3
The Finapres (Volume
Clamp) Recording Method in Psychophysiological Detection of Deception
Examinations: Experimental Comparison With the
Cardiograph Method
Table
1:
Descriptive Statistics
and Point-Biserial Correlations With Role
|
|
Standardized
Difference Scores |
|
|
Innocent |
Guilty |
|
Measure |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
rpb |
|
Finapres Group |
|
|
Skin Conductance Amplitude |
.67* |
.80 |
-.46* |
.49 |
.66* |
|
Respiration Excursion |
.45* |
.75 |
-.26* |
.39 |
.52* |
|
Finapres Amplitude |
.49* |
.92 |
-.31* |
.50 |
.49* |
|
Finapres Pulse Amplitude |
.66* |
1.17 |
-.37* |
.67 |
.48* |
|
Heart Period Amplitude |
.34 |
.86 |
-.11 |
.63 |
.30 |
|
n |
20 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
Cardiograph Group |
|
|
Skin Conductance Amplitude |
.34* |
.70 |
-.49* |
.71 |
.51* |
|
Respiration Excursion |
.08 |
.58 |
-.46* |
.61 |
.42* |
|
Cardiograph Amplitude |
.44* |
.52 |
-.30* |
.63 |
.55* |
|
Cardiograph Pulse Amplitude |
.42* |
.45 |
-.09 |
.59 |
.44* |
|
Heart Period Amplitude |
.30* |
.59 |
-.27 |
.61 |
.43* |
|
n |
20 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
Finapres/Cardiograph Group |
|
|
Skin Conductance Amplitude |
.51* |
1.01 |
-.44* |
.48 |
.53* |
|
Respiration Excursion |
.51* |
.69 |
-.33* |
.52 |
.58* |
|
Finapres Amplitude |
.28 |
.84 |
-.32* |
.61 |
.39* |
|
Cardiograph Amplitude |
.25 |
.94 |
-.22 |
.60 |
.29 |
|
Finapres Pulse Amplitude |
.30 |
1.16 |
-.53* |
.64 |
.41* |
|
Cardiograph Pulse Amplitude |
.26 |
1.07 |
-.30* |
.54 |
.31* |
|
Heart Period Amplitude |
.35* |
.56 |
-.38 |
.92 |
.44* |
|
n |
20 |
20 |
|
The rpbs
are Pearson product moment correlations of the measures with
Role. The difference score means were compared with 0.00 using
two-tailed t tests. The value of 0.00 represents a difference
of 0.00 between the mean relevant and control-question responses.
Significant negative means indicate that the relevant-question
responses were larger than the control-question responses; significant
positive means indicate the reverse. SD = standard deviation.
* p < .05.
Back
to the top
Back to the article
FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS OCTOBER 1999 VOLUME
1 NUMBER 3 |