Stress and deception in speech: evaluating layered voice analysis.

This study was designed to evaluate commonly used voice stress analyzers--in this case the layered voice analysis (LVA) system. The research protocol involved the use of a speech database containing materials recorded while highly controlled deception and stress levels were systematically varied. Subjects were 24 each males/females (age range 18-63 years) drawn from a diverse population. All held strong views about some issue; they were required to make intense contradictory statements while believing that they would be heard/seen by peers. The LVA system was then evaluated by means of a double blind study using two types of examiners: a pair of scientists trained and certified by the manufacturer in the proper use of the system and two highly experienced LVA instructors provided by this same firm. The results showed that the "true positive" (or hit) rates for all examiners averaged near chance (42-56%) for all conditions, types of materials (e.g., stress vs. unstressed, truth vs. deception), and examiners (scientists vs. manufacturers). Most importantly, the false positive rate was very high, ranging from 40% to 65%. Sensitivity statistics confirmed that the LVA system operated at about chance levels in the detection of truth, deception, and the presence of high and low vocal stress states.

Evaluation of the NITV CVSA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a commonly used voice stress analyzer, the National Institute of Truth Verification's (NITV) Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), using a speech database containing materials recorded (i) in the laboratory, while highly controlled deceptive and shock-induced stress levels were systematically varied, and (ii) during a field procedure. Subjects were 24 each males/females (age range 18-63 years) drawn from a representative population. All held strong views on an issue and were required to make sharply derogatory statements about it. The CVSA system was then evaluated in a double-blind study using three sets of examiners: (i) two UF scientists trained/certified by NITV in CVSA operation, (ii) three experienced NITV operators provided by the manufacturer and (iii) five experimental phoneticians. The results showed that the "true positive" (or hit) rates for all examiners ranged from chance to somewhat higher levels (c. 50-65%) for all conditions and types of materials (e.g., stress vs. unstressed, truth vs. deception). However, the false-positive rate was just as high - often higher. Sensitivity statistics demonstrated that the CVSA system operated at about chance level.