Mapping Polygraph: A Bibliometric Analysis and Evolving Scientific Trajectory

The accurate detection of deception in human interactions has long been of interest across a broad array of contexts and has been studied in many fields, including psychology, communication, and law enforcement. The truth is the fundamental pillar and a vital prerequisite for serving justice to maintain the integrity of peace and harmony within society. But obtaining the truth and achieving its distinction from deception within civilized standards is what poses a challenge for all law enforcement agencies in any country. Although there has been a range of scientific techniques which can be used to detect lying by analyzing the physiological activities of the human body to aid in more efficient crime investigation and thereby serve justice, their admissibility in the court of law has become a topic of debate. Therefore, in this review, an attempt has been made to understand the underlying issues in the use of polygraph and legal issues associated with it. Recent developments in polygraph and stress detection are explored in this review paper. Furthermore, a comparison has been made with the legal position of the polygraph in India with other countries across the world using a bibliometric analysis tool.

Lie Detection, Deception, Polygraph, and Admissibility in court of law

1. Rakoff JS. Lie detection in the courts: The vain search for the magic bullet. In: Bizzi E, Hyman SE, Raichle ME, Kanwisher N, Phelps EA, Morse SJ, et al., editors. Using imaging to identify deceit : Scientific and ethical questions. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2009; 40–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Sinnott-Armstrong W. Neural lie detection in courts. In: Bizzi E, Hyman SE, Raichle ME, Kanwisher N, Phelps EA, Morse SJ, et al., editors. Using imaging to identify deceit : Scientific and ethical questions. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2009; 35–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Appelbaum PS. The New Lie Detectors: Neuroscience, Deception, and the Courts. Law Psychiatry 2007;58(4):460–2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Math SB. Supreme court judgement on polygraph, narco-analysis & brain-mapping : A boon or a bane. Indian J Med Res 2011;134(1):4–7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ford EB. Lie detection: Historical, neuropshychiatric and legal dimensions. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006;29:159–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Saxe L, Dougherty D, Cross TP. The validity of polygraph testing. Scientific analysis and public controversy. Am Psychol 1985;40(3):355–66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Lykken DT. Tremor in the blood : Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Mc Graw Hill, 1998; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lewis JA, Cuppari M. The polygraph: The truth lies within. J Psychiatry Law 2009;37:85–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Vicianova M. Historical Techniques of Lie Detection. Eur J Psychol 2015;11(3):522–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Porter S, Campbell MA. A. Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and Implications forProfessional Practice. Expert Evid [Internet] 1999;7(3):227–32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008978705657 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. SC. All India Reproter (AIR). 2010; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. SC. All India Reporter (AIR). 1954; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. SC. Supreme Court Report. 1955; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Academy TNSJ. Supreme Court Judgements of Legal Importance. 2010; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. SC. All India Reporter (AIR). 1997; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. SC. All India Reporter (AIR). 1961; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Bartol CR, Bartol AM, editors. Investigative psychology. In: Introduction to forensic psychology : Research and Application. Los Angeles: Sage Publication, 2008; 79–111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Orsdel V. FRYE v. UNITED STATES. 1923; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Peters DD. Per Se Prohibitions of the admission of Polygraph Evidence as upheld in Scheffer are both violative of the constitution and the federal rules of evidence as applied by Daubert. Am J Crim Law 2000;27:249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Citro VA. Playing “Pin the tail on the truth” in the eleventh circuit: Why polygraph evidence should be excluded on federal courts. Stetson Law Rev 2000;30:715. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. John Synnott*, David Dietzel and Maria Ioannou, A review of the polygraph: history, methodology and current status, International Research Centre for Investigative Psychology, School of Human and Health Sciences,University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK, 2015. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Neta Dan, From the Roots to the Branches: Evolution of Polygraph Tests and Future Outlook. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Satpathi, S., Arafath, K.M.I.Y., Routray, A. et al. Analysis of thermal videos for detection of lie during interrogation. J Image Video Proc. 2024, 9 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13640-024-00624-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pavlidis, I., & Levine, J. (2002). Thermal image analysis for polygraph testing. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 21(6), 56-64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Rothkrantz, L. J., Wiggers, P., Van Wees, J. W. A., & van Vark, R. J. (2004). Voice stress analysis. In Text, Speech and Dialogue: 7th International Conference, TSD 2004, Brno, Czech Republic, September 8-11, 2004. Proceedings 7 (pp. 449-456). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Bessonova, Y. V., & Oboznov, A. A. (2018). Eye movements and lie detection. In Intelligent Human Systems Integration: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2018): Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, January 7-9, 2018, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (pp. 149-155). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Handler, M., & Krapohl, D. J. (2007). The use and benefits of the photoelectric plethysmograph in polygraph testing. Polygraph, 36(1), 18-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Albright, T. D. (2023). A scientist's take on scientific evidence in the courtroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120, e2301839120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301839120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rutbeck-Goldman, A. (2017). An unfair and cruel weapon: Consequences of modern-day polygraph use in Federal pre-employment screening. UC Irvine Law Review, 7(3), 715–741. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. People v. Espinoza, 838 P.2d 204 (Cal. 1992). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Krugler v. Texas, 902 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. App. 1995). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Barnes, B., Myers, B., Pond, R., & Meyer, K. (2023). The influence of false evidence ploy variants on perceptions of coercion and deception. Journal of Forensic Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(4), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2023.2178992 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. People v. Thornton, 11 Cal. 3d 738 (Cal. 1974). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Iacono, W. G., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2019). Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Beha vior, 43(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000307 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). Plenum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. R. v. Beland, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 (Can.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. British Polygraph Society. (2024). Polygraph tests: Understanding their use and admissibility in the U.K. legal system. https://polygraph.org.uk/polygraph-tests-understanding-their-use-and-admissibility-in-the-uk-legal-system/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge test in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020204005730 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. St. George, D. (2019, March 31). Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax passed two polygraph tests about sex assaults, his office says. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-lt-gov-justin-fairfax-passed-polygraph-tests-about-sex-assaults-his-office-says/2019/03/31/90b771f2-53ec-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Synnott, J., Dietzel, D., & Ioannou, M. (2015). A review of the polygraph: History, methodology and current status. Crime Psychology Review, 1(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Sharma, B. R. (2021). Forensic science in criminal investigation & trials (6th ed.). LexisNexis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Government of India. (2024). Central forensic labs. https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2016-pdfs/rs-100816/2686%20E.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Tyagi, S. P. (n.d.). Forensic evidence law & evidence (2nd ed.). Vinod Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. National Human Rights Commission. (2000). Guidelines for the administration of polygraph tests. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Forensic Yard. (2024). Forensics evidence in criminal cases. https://forensicyard.com/forensics-evidence-in-criminal-cases/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Business Standard. (2024). Shraddha murder case: Aftab Poonawalla goes through polygraph tests. https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/shraddha-murder-case-aftab-poonawalla-goes-through-polygraph-tests-122112300068_1.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Fondelco. (2024). Forensic physics. http://www.fondelco.in/institute/forensic-physics.php [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Jay A. Siegel. (2024). Forensic science. https://www.britannica.com/science/forensic-science [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• How to Encrypt & Decrypt Secret Message Using Invisible Ink
• A Comparative Study on Understanding Forensic Accounting and Auditing Compared to Traditional Accounting and Auditing.
• Detecting Procurement Fraud in the Public Sector