From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 03:24:16 +0800
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Voice Stress Analysis of Debates?
Message-ID: <199610061727.KAA18789@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:23 AM 10/6/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote:
>jim bell wrote:
>> This reminds me...   Years ago, somebody developed a technique called
>> "Voice Stress Analysis," which was supposed to detect small variations
>> in a person's voice in response to stress. Not exactly a lie-detector,
>> but it was supposed to do nearly the same thing.   Does anybody plan
>> to analyze the debates for stress?  Is there software to do this?
>> (Tried to do a web-search; didn't see anything.)
>
>Pardon me for butting in.  Some remailer says I post too much, and I 
>should cut out some. They didn't say which posts I should cut out, tho'.

Cryptography is, basically, the area of hidden meanings.  In a sense, a 
voice-stress analyzer is intended to seek out hidden meanings in a person's 
statements.  So I'd say it's as on-topic as most of the stuff 'round here.

>Anyway, as I understand it, the current technology in voice/stress 
>analysis goes way beyond the polygraph at its best (current) level of 
>technology.  There was at least one agency that did voice analysis 
>during the Simpson debacle, and the results were (as I recall) very 
>promising.  Apparently, a person who can beat a polygraph cannot beat a 
>voice/stress analysis.

One thing I wonder is this:  Can the stress indications be removed from a 
voice-containing signal by some sophisticated DSP processing?  Just look for 
whatever effect that indicates stress, add it in equal and negative amounts 
to eliminate the apparent stress, etc.    It might not make sense for 
anything less "critical" than debates, but if the control of the debates is 
as monopolized as we think it is, it is reasonable to think that debate 
participants would insist on a certain level of control over the audio signal.


>BTW, the rule for these debates (as all presidential discourse) is:
>"He's lying."
>"How can you tell?"
>"His lips are moving."

Well, I sorta assumed this.  But I would still be interested to get some 
kind of quantitative feedback on the debates.  If anything, the ABSENSE of 
the news media's attempting to use voice-stress analysis is telling.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com