Neurodiversity and Polygraph Examinations: Suitability, Reasonable Adjustments and Evidence-Based Practice

Increasing numbers of people seeking polygraph examinations identify as neurodivergent. These individuals present with a wide range of profiles, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum conditions, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, Tourette syndrome and other neurodevelopmental presentations. Many arrive having already navigated complex legal, clinical or employment-related circumstances, and they frequently carry one very direct question with them: “Can I actually undergo a polygraph examination?”

The short answer is that neurodiversity alone does not prevent someone from undergoing a professionally conducted polygraph examination. The more complete answer, however, is that good practice requires a rigorous individual assessment rather than a sweeping assumption in either direction. An experienced examiner does not apply blanket exclusions, nor do they assume that any particular profile automatically makes someone an ideal candidate. What matters is understanding how an individual’s communication style, cognitive processing and sensory profile may interact with the examination procedure, and responding to those considerations with professional rigour.

This article is written for solicitors, barristers, family courts, employers, investigators, therapists, psychologists, police and potential examinees. It is also written for neurodivergent individuals and their families who deserve a clear, transparent and evidence-based account of what can be established, what remains unvalidated, and what safeguards must be observed.

What the Research Establishes—and What Remains Uncertain

To evaluate polygraph suitability in neurodivergent populations responsibly, it is essential to distinguish between separate domains of scientific inquiry. Substantial research has emerged examining how neurodivergent adults communicate, how they are perceived in investigative interviews, and how they engage in deceptive behaviour under experimental conditions. However, none of this research validates physiological lie detection instruments in neurodivergent populations.

To understand the current state of forensic psychophysiology, three distinct lines of research must be kept separate:

• Forensic interviewing and observer credibility research: Recent empirical studies demonstrate that autistic adults exhibit distinct communicative features during investigative interviews (such as longer speech hesitations, atypical verbal intonation, and difficulties interpreting figurative language; Logos et al., 2025/2026). When viewed by neurotypical evaluators, autistic individuals are frequently judged as less credible, less believable, or more deceptive, even when being entirely truthful (Lim, Young & Brewer, 2022). Furthermore, in suspect interview settings, innocent autistic individuals may omit details that would substantiate their innocence (Bagnall et al., 2023). These findings highlight severe observational vulnerabilities in interpersonal interviews, but they examine human judgements of behaviour, not autonomic physiological recording.
• Deception frequency and naturalistic lying research: Newer meta-analytic and empirical investigations challenge simplistic assumptions regarding autistic honesty. Meta-analytic findings indicate that differences in naturalistic deception between autistic and neurotypical individuals are task- and context-dependent rather than absolute (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Autistic adults report lying in daily life with comparable frequency to non-autistic peers, while experiencing greater cognitive difficulty, reduced self-confidence, and significantly higher levels of self-reported guilt when making deceptive decisions (Blackhurst et al., 2025). These studies illuminate social cognition and moral emotion, but they do not examine autonomic arousal during structured psychophysiological testing.
• Psychophysiological polygraph and Concealed Information Test (CIT) validation: The peer-reviewed psychophysiological validation literature demonstrates acceptable diagnostic accuracy for standard Comparison Question Tests (CQT) and event-specific CIT protocols within general normative populations. Critically, however, there are no published, controlled peer-reviewed validation studies evaluating physiological polygraph accuracy, error rates, or decision thresholds specifically in autistic or neurodivergent cohorts.

In short: the scientific literature does not establish autism-specific polygraph accuracy, does not demonstrate equivalent accuracy across neurodivergent and neurotypical populations, and does not provide quantified population-specific error rates. Clinicians, legal practitioners and examiners must recognise that while reasonable adjustments enhance accessibility and comprehension, they cannot substitute for empirical, population-specific validation research.

What Does the Polygraph Actually Measure?

A common source of anxiety among neurodivergent individuals, and among the professionals advising them, stems from a misunderstanding of what a polygraph records. It is vital to be unambiguous on this point.

A professional polygraph examination does not measure autism, ADHD, anxiety disorders, personality traits or moral integrity. The instrument does not detect dishonesty directly, nor is it capable of reading thoughts. What the polygraph instrument records are autonomic physiological responses across three primary physiological channels:

• Respiration: Upper (thoracic) and lower (abdominal) breathing patterns, recorded continuously via pneumatic or electronic sensors positioned around the chest and torso.
• Electrodermal activity: Transient changes in skin conductance and sweat gland activity mediated by the sympathetic nervous system, recorded via sensors placed on the fingers or palm.
• Cardiovascular activity: Relative changes in blood pressure, pulse rate and pulse amplitude, recorded continuously via a standard blood pressure cuff maintained at constant sub-systolic pressure on the upper arm.

In addition, modern standardized instruments incorporate movement sensor pads beneath the seat, feet, or arms to detect somatic movement, muscle tensing, or physical restlessness that could create artefacts on the physiological tracings.

During the chart recording phase, the examinee responds with a simple verbal “Yes” or “No” to a structured series of pre-reviewed questions. Standardized scoring protocols evaluate whether systematic, differential autonomic activation occurs when the individual answers relevant questions compared with structured comparison questions. This determination is grounded strictly in psychophysiological data, not in behavioural observation.

It is equally important to emphasise what professional examiners do not do. Competent examiners do not assess truthfulness based on eye contact, body language, facial micro-expressions, postural shifting or nervous mannerisms. Relying on such behavioural cues has been repeatedly discredited across forensic psychology and poses particular danger to neurodivergent examinees whose non-verbal presentation may naturally diverge from neurotypical expectations.

Defence Commentary, Practitioner Observations and Historical Recommendations

In discussions of autism and polygraph suitability, reference is frequently made to a paper by American criminal defence attorney Mark J. Mahoney, titled Polygraph Testing of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (revised 24 November 2023). Mahoney provides a detailed practitioner commentary written from the perspective of criminal defence advocacy, illustrating practical pitfalls, pre-test complexities, and the risk of uncritical reliance on polygraph outcomes by law enforcement or supervisory bodies.

It is crucial to understand what Mahoney’s paper is—and what it is not. Mahoney’s paper is a qualitative practitioner discussion containing legal analysis, strategic observations, and descriptive case anecdotes. It is not an empirical research study, does not present controlled experimental data, and does not constitute a scientific validation of polygraph methodology in autistic populations.

Sugrue’s Recommendation in Context

Mahoney draws heavily upon an excerpt from Dr Dennis P. Sugrue’s 2017 chapter, Forensic Assessment of Individuals on the Autism Spectrum Charged with Child Pornography Violations (in Dubin & Horowitz, eds., Caught in the Web of the Criminal Justice System). In the excerpt reproduced and cited by Mahoney, Dr Sugrue observed that:

“Unfortunately, there is no substantive research on the accuracy of polygraphs when administered to individuals on the autism spectrum. The very nature of their neurological condition predisposes people on the spectrum to be far more reactive to a polygraph examination than is the case for the neurotypical population... If required to take a polygraph, it is unknown how a person with ASD will respond physiologically when strapped in a chair (forced restriction of movement) in a room most likely lit with fluorescent lighting (causing sensory overload) while pneumographs, galvanometers, and a blood pressure cuff are attached to his body (triggering touch aversion)... For the reasons stated above, without further research validating the use of polygraphs with the ASD population, use of this tool should be avoided in such cases.” (Sugrue, 2017, as quoted in Mahoney, 2023)

Practitioners must contextualise Sugrue’s position accurately. Dr Sugrue recommended that polygraph examinations be avoided in autistic individuals specifically because of the complete absence of empirical validation research, compounded by clinical concerns regarding tactile aversion, sensory overload, and over-scrupulous guilt. This constitutes a prudent clinical and precautionary recommendation; it should not be mischaracterised as an empirical proof of universal physiological unsuitability. An individualised assessment model examines whether these specific vulnerabilities exist for the person in question, whether they can be accommodated without compromising diagnostic standards, or whether they justify postponing or declining testing.

Written Statements and Issue-Specific Testing

Mahoney illustrates the benefit of tailored pre-test preparation by describing a federal case (“E.E.”), in which two initial government examinations yielded inconclusive results due to the examinee’s pedantic concern for accuracy, repetitive recall of peripheral details, and secondary anxiety. In that case, the defence examiner had the examinee write out a detailed historical statement regarding his sexual history prior to the evaluation, subsequently asking whether the written statement was accurate and whether he had been truthful in providing it.

This case serves as a useful practical illustration of how written preparation can assist an autistic examinee to organise complex information and reduce catastrophic second-guessing. However, from a polygraph methodology standpoint, it must be treated strictly as an anecdotal illustration. Validated polygraph practice relies on concrete, single-issue, behaviourally specific questions (e.g., “Did you touch…?”), rather than global or secondary questions asking whether a multi-page written document is truthful in its entirety. Broad questions regarding the truthfulness of an entire statement dilute diagnostic sensitivity, violate standard question formulation standards, and do not validate the underlying narrative.

Neurodiversity, Deception, and Credibility in Forensic Contexts

Forensic assessment requires dismantling persistent myths on both sides of the neurodiversity spectrum: the misconception that neurodivergent individuals present behavioural indicators of deceit, and the inverse misconception that autistic people are incapable of lying.

Communication Differences Are Not Indicators of Deceit

Forensic interviews and pre-test polygraph interactions place substantial demands on social communication. Recent research highlights several critical findings for investigators and examiners:

• Systematic Credibility Bias: Lim, Young, and Brewer (2022) established that autistic adults are systematically rated by non-autistic observers as less credible, less believable, and more deceptive, even when providing completely honest testimony. Crucially, the authors demonstrated that this negative impression was driven by the individual’s overall non-neurotypical behavioural presentation rather than isolated, specific non-verbal cues. When evaluators were informed of the person’s autism diagnosis, this negative bias was significantly attenuated.
• Verbal and Non-Verbal Presentation: In an IQ-matched experimental forensic interview study, Logos, Lim, Brewer, and Young (2025/2026) measured 19 distinct verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Autistic adults demonstrated significantly longer speech hesitations, greater vocal intonation variation, and pronounced difficulties interpreting figurative language compared to neurotypical peers. Importantly, the researchers documented substantial variability between individuals and within the same individual over time. Atypical affect, prolonged pauses, or uneven vocal cadence reflect cognitive processing styles and communicative differences—they must never be interpreted as hesitation born of guilt or deception.
• Omission of Innocence-Supporting Information: Bagnall et al. (2023), investigating police suspect interviews with autistic adults, identified that innocent autistic individuals may struggle to identify, organise, or articulate facts that support their innocence. Under interview stress, an autistic suspect may omit critical exculpatory details simply because they assume the interviewer already knows them, because they perceive the detail as outside the literal scope of the question, or due to executive overload. An omission requires patient, concrete clarification—not automatic investigative suspicion.

Deception Is Context-Dependent: Avoiding the "Universal Honesty" Stereotype

Historically, autistic individuals were frequently stereotyped as "truthful to a fault," rigid moralists incapable of deceit. While many autistic individuals place an extraordinarily high value on factual precision, contemporary scientific literature demonstrates a much more nuanced reality:

• Empirical Lie Frequency: In a systematic review and meta-analysis of naturalistic deception, Bharadwaj, Sweller, Dargue, and Jones (2025) found that deceptive behaviour in autistic individuals varies significantly by context and task structure. While autistic participants showed lower rates of deception in reciprocal social games (such as hide-and-seek tasks), they demonstrated no significant difference in deception rates during temptation-resistance tasks.
• Daily Deception and Emotional Experience: Blackhurst, Warmelink, Roestorf, and Hartley (2025) compared autistic and non-autistic adults and found no statistically significant difference in self-reported daily lie frequency. However, autistic participants reported that lying was considerably more cognitively demanding, anticipated greater difficulty in successfully executing deception, and experienced significantly higher levels of self-reported guilt and anxiety when making deceptive choices.

Separating Self-Reported Emotion from Measured Physiology: This finding has profound implications for polygraph practice. Self-reported guilt, moral anxiety, or fear of being disbelieved must not be conflated with measured autonomic responsivity or test accuracy. The polygraph instrument does not measure moral remorse; it records sympathetic nervous system arousal triggered by the psychological salience of competing stimuli. An examiner must ensure through structured pre-test review that relevant questions do not evoke generalised anxiety, moral scrupulosity, or unrelated self-reproach.

Active Comprehension Checks Throughout the Examination

In standard polygraph examinations, examiners ask whether the examinee understands the questions and instructions, accepting an affirmative nod or verbal agreement. In neurodivergent examinations, passive agreement is wholly insufficient.

As Mahoney (2023) observed, autistic individuals often excel at repeating or parroting back explanations verbatim, creating a false impression of comprehension. Parroting does not demonstrate that the individual understands the functional meaning of the question, its real-world boundaries, or the procedural purpose of the instruction. Evidence-based practice requires active comprehension testing:

• Paraphrasing in the Examinee’s Own Words: The examiner must require the examinee to explain, in their own vocabulary, exactly what each relevant question is asking and what conduct it includes and excludes.
• Concrete Scenario Testing: The examiner should present concrete, hypothetical examples (e.g., “If action X occurred, would that be a yes or a no to this question?”) to confirm that conceptual boundaries are fully aligned.
• Understanding Comparison Questions: In Comparison Question Tests (CQT), comparison questions serve as psychological baselines. Autistic examinees, processing questions literally, may become deeply troubled by comparison questions addressing minor historical transgressions (e.g., minor adolescent misbehaviour), either refusing to answer or experiencing intense internal conflict because they cannot be 100% certain of the absolute accuracy of their recollection. The examiner must carefully review these questions, address concerns regarding minor exceptions, and verify that the examinee understands their purpose without feeling tricked.
• Directed-Response and Familiarisation Instructions: If an acquaintance test (stimulus test) is administered, instructions must be explicitly demonstrated. Mahoney cited an autistic examinee (“Brandon”) who, during a numbers acquaintance test, became fixated on the theoretical possibility that the examiner had switched the written number while his eyes were averted. Such over-scrupulous literalness disrupts standard testing unless the procedure is demystified and transparently explained.

Clarifying Behaviours, Dates and Exclusions Before Recording

Literal and concrete processing frequently causes neurodivergent examinees to interpret polygraph questions far more broadly or narrowly than intended, leading to unresolvable ambiguity during chart recording.

For example, Mahoney described a young autistic man tested in a criminal investigation who was scored as deceptive when denying touching young females inappropriately. In post-test enquiry, it transpired that the examinee had a historical period within the family home where he playfully slapped family members on the buttocks. Because the relevant question lacked precise environmental exclusions, his literal mind incorporated that innocuous domestic conduct into the question, producing significant physiological reactivity.

To avoid false positives or uninterpretable charts, the pre-test interview must establish rigorous linguistic boundaries:

• Explicit Timeframes and Venues: Avoid vague temporal markers such as “recently,” “ever,” or “in the past.” Questions must anchor strictly to specified calendar dates, locations, or clearly demarcated incidents.
• Behavioural Specificity: Avoid subjective terms such as “inappropriate,” “sexual,” or “improper.” Questions must identify concrete physical acts (e.g., “Between 1 January 2024 and 31 March 2024, did you physically take money from the safe?”).
• Resolving Minor Exceptions: The examiner must discuss and explicitly exclude minor, peripheral, or ambiguous historical memories that the examinee fears might technically breach the question wording.
• Zero In-Test Question Modifications: Autistic individuals experience acute distress and cognitive disorientation when settled expectations are altered. The exact wording agreed during the pre-test review must remain identical on the test charts. If a question must be modified, the recording must stop, the sensors must be detached or depressurised, and the revised question must be fully discussed and re-reviewed. Never assume an autistic examinee will treat a rephrased question as equivalent to the original.

Sensory and Movement Safeguards

The sensory demands of a polygraph examination are intense and directly confront classic neurodevelopmental sensitivities. A standard examination involves tight arm cuffs, chest straps, finger electrodes, and sustained physical stillness in a confined room.

Sensory Tolerance and Acclimatisation

Sensory overload can severely contaminate physiological data by inducing non-specific autonomic reactivity. Responsible practice implements structured environmental adaptations:

• Acoustic and Visual Management: The testing room must be free from external auditory distractions, ticking clocks, fluorescent lighting hum, or flickering illumination. Dimmable, warm lighting and quiet clinical venues are essential.
• Incremental Sensor Attachment: Rather than attaching all sensors at once, the examiner should introduce each component sequentially, explaining its tactile feel and function.
• Blood Pressure Cuff Familiarisation: The occlusion cuff maintained at 50–60 mmHg on the upper arm can trigger acute tactile distress or numbness. The examiner should conduct a brief practice inflation during the pre-test phase to verify the examinee’s physical tolerance.

Self-Regulatory Movement (Stimming) vs Deliberate Countermeasures

Many neurodivergent examinees exhibit involuntary motor restlessness, repetitive movements (such as toe-tapping, finger-rubbing, or rocking), or physical stimming to self-regulate anxiety and sensory input. In standard polygraph scoring, unexpected physical movement produces tracing distortions (movement artefacts) that may resemble deliberate countermeasures (physical attempts to distort charts).

Examiners must maintain clear diagnostic separation:

• Activity Sensors: Modern polygraph instruments utilise specialised motion-sensor cushions beneath the chair and feet. These sensors detect somatic movement and help the examiner distinguish natural motor restlessness from deliberate manipulation.
• Identifying Movement Patterns in Advance: The pre-test interview should identify the individual’s idiosyncratic motor habits, establishing whether they can sustain stillness for the required 3- to 4-minute chart recording intervals.
• Preserving Procedural Validity: While reasonable adjustments (such as frequent rest breaks between charts and stretching periods) are vital, adjustments must remain compatible with standard psychophysiological recording. An examiner cannot simply eliminate required physiological channels or ignore severe movement artefacts. If motor restlessness or sensory distress prevents the recording of clean, interpretable physiological tracings across all required channels, the examination must be suspended or declared unsuitable.

Informed Consent, Capacity, and Voluntary Participation

Informed consent is the ethical bedrock of forensic psychophysiology. For neurodivergent individuals, establishing valid consent requires proactive verification rather than perfunctory administrative signing.

A signed document does not demonstrate capacity. The examinee must demonstrate genuine understanding of: (1) the specific purpose of the examination; (2) the voluntary nature of testing; (3) their absolute right to pause, take a break, or terminate the procedure at any point without penalty; (4) who will receive the resulting report; and (5) the inherent technical limitations of the methodology. If cognitive processing difficulties, extreme distress, or intellectual disability prevent the individual from grasping these concepts, the examination must not proceed.

In statutory contexts (such as mandatory post-conviction testing in the criminal justice system), voluntary consent is constrained by licence conditions. In these settings, ensuring that the examinee understands the process and has access to appropriate advocacy is vital to avoid compounding disadvantage.

Communication Support and Intermediaries

For adult examinees with significant receptive or expressive communication needs, the involvement of a communication supporter or Court-Appointed Registered Intermediary may be considered.

In his discussion, Mahoney noted that it is “often necessary for the parent to be involved” in pre-test discussions with autistic clients. In professional UK practice, however, adult examinees are entitled to autonomy and confidentiality. The involvement of family members, carers, or professional intermediaries must remain strictly individual and consent-based, reflecting the adult examinee’s express wishes and clinical needs.

Where a supporter is present during the pre-test interview, their role must be strictly defined:

• The supporter may assist in facilitating mutual comprehension, clarifying idiomatic phrasing, or helping the examiner understand sensory triggers.
• The supporter must never answer questions on behalf of the examinee, prompt responses, or participate in question formulation decisions.
• Third parties are generally excluded from the testing room during active chart recording to prevent visual distraction and external autonomic reactivity, unless specific intermediary protocols are agreed upon in advance.

Inconclusive Classifications: Transparent Reporting and Inherent Limitations

One of the most consequential issues in testing neurodivergent individuals is the interpretation and reporting of inconclusive results.

An Inconclusive Result Is Not an Indicator of Deception

In psychophysiological testing, an inconclusive outcome occurs when physiological reactions across comparison and relevant questions fail to achieve the statistical numerical thresholds required for a definitive classification of No Deception Indicated (NDI) or Deception Indicated (DI). It is a neutral psychophysiological classification.

Inconclusive outcomes frequently arise from non-deceptive factors, including high generalised autonomic arousal, over-scrupulous second-guessing, physical movement artefacts, or cognitive fatigue. An inconclusive classification is not a finding of deception, is not evidence of guilt, and does not indicate deliberate non-cooperation.

Scorable Tracings Do Not Prove Population Accuracy

A common error among examiners is assuming that because an examinee remained calm, produced clean physiological tracings, and completed the protocol without overt distress, the examination was therefore demonstrably accurate. Successful completion and scorable recordings prove technical interpretability; they do not prove population-specific validity.

Every formal forensic polygraph report concerning a neurodivergent examinee must include transparent documentation of:

• The specific neurodevelopmental profile and developmental history disclosed.
• All reasonable adjustments implemented during the pre-test and testing phases.
• Any observed sensory, motor, or cognitive anomalies noted during chart collection.
• The explicit limitation that, while standard scoring protocols were applied, controlled empirical validation data for polygraph testing in neurodivergent populations do not currently exist.

Neurodiversity and Alternative Methodologies: CIT and Statement Analysis

When comparison question polygraph testing is deemed unsuitable or unfeasible, practitioners frequently consider alternative investigative methodologies.

The Concealed Information Test (CIT)

The Concealed Information Test (CIT) operates on a different psychophysiological rationale than the CQT. Rather than comparing answers to emotionally provocative questions, the CIT presents a series of multiple-choice items (e.g., five weapons, five sums of money), one of which is the actual detail from the crime scene, while the other four are plausible controls. The test detects the autonomic orienting reflex triggered when an examinee recognises guilty knowledge.

Because the CIT requires only silent listening or simple item confirmation, it reduces the linguistic complexity and emotional defensiveness associated with comparison questions. However, practitioners must avoid two critical pitfalls:

• The CIT is not validated as superior for autistic examinees: There is no empirical research demonstrating that the CIT is more accurate, less error-prone, or scientifically preferable for autistic individuals. Its utility must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• Strict Case-Information Prerequisites: The CIT is entirely dependent on the availability of uncontaminated, protected crime details known only to the perpetrator and investigators. If the details have been disclosed during police interviews, in charge sheets, or across social media, the CIT is completely invalid, as an innocent examinee will also recognise the critical items.
• Qualified Autonomic Responsivity: Earlier literature sometimes posited that alexithymia (difficulty identifying internal emotional states, common in autism) systematically attenuates electrodermal responding. Recent psychophysiological literature reveals a much more complex, mixed picture: individuals with alexithymia exhibit altered autonomic regulation, variable skin conductance habituation, and dissociation between subjective feelings and bodily responses, rather than uniform hypo-reactivity. Autonomic baseline responsiveness must be established empirically for each individual.

Investigative Statement Analysis

Statement analysis examines the linguistic structure, balance, and word choices in written or spoken narratives. In neurodivergent individuals, standard linguistic criteria must be applied with extreme caution.

Autistic individuals frequently produce accounts characterised by atypical chronological flow, exhaustive technical detail, minimal affective vocabulary, and blunt factual declarations. Evaluators unfamiliar with neurodivergent communication styles frequently misinterpret these characteristics as rehearsed evasion or lack of genuine emotional engagement. Similarly, written statement analysis is inappropriate for individuals with dyslexia or expressive language disorders without specialized linguistic accommodation.

Regarding Mahoney’s case illustration of a written statement: while compiling a written statement can help an autistic examinee articulate their history, using a polygraph to ask “Is your written statement true?” violates basic single-issue testing rules. Statement analysis and polygraph examinations represent distinct methodologies and should not be conflated into broad, unvalidated hybrid questions.

Common Misconceptions (Revised and Rigorous)

Myth: Autistic people and individuals with ADHD cannot undergo a polygraph examination.
Fact: Neurodevelopmental diagnoses are not blanket contraindications. Suitability must be assessed on an individual basis, evaluating cognitive comprehension, sensory tolerance, motor control, and emotional stability. Many neurodivergent individuals can complete an examination when appropriate adjustments are implemented.

Myth: Autistic individuals are incapable of lying, making polygraph testing redundant.
Fact: Empirical research (Bharadwaj et al., 2025; Blackhurst et al., 2025) demonstrates that deceptive behaviour in autistic individuals is context-dependent and that lie frequency in everyday life is comparable to neurotypical populations. Assuming universal honesty is an unscientific stereotype.

Myth: Reasonable adjustments guarantee the scientific validity of the test.
Fact: Reasonable adjustments remove procedural and communicative barriers, ensuring that the examinee understands the process and is not overwhelmed by the testing environment. Adjustments support accessibility and comprehension, but they do not guarantee diagnostic accuracy, alter underlying autonomic biology, or resolve the absence of population-specific validation data.

Myth: The absence of published evidence showing higher error rates proves that polygraphs are equally accurate for neurodivergent people.
Fact: In forensic science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of published studies demonstrating elevated false-positive or false-negative rates in autistic cohorts reflects an absence of dedicated empirical validation research, not proof of psychophysiological equivalence.

Myth: Inconclusive polygraph results indicate guilt, deception, or deliberate uncooperativeness.
Fact: An inconclusive classification means the physiological data did not meet required numerical thresholds for a definitive diagnostic call. Inconclusive outcomes frequently result from heightened baseline anxiety, sensory discomfort, literal second-guessing, or movement artefacts, and must never be interpreted as evidence of deception.

Professional Standards and Ethical Guidance

Forensic practitioners assessing neurodivergent individuals must operate at the intersection of general psychological assessment principles and specialized polygraph technical standards, recognising the distinct authority and scope of each framework:

• British Psychological Society (BPS) Guidance: The BPS guidance on working with neurodivergent individuals (2021/2024) addresses psychological and psychometric assessment generally, rather than polygraph examinations specifically. However, its core principles are vital: assessment procedures must not disadvantage neurodivergent examinees in ways unrelated to the construct being measured, examiners must adapt communication methods, and reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 must be proactively considered.
• American Psychological Association (APA) Principles: The APA’s general testing standards mandate cultural, linguistic, and developmental competence, requiring practitioners to verify that assessment instruments are applied fairly and that diagnostic limitations are candidly disclosed when testing populations for whom test norms have not been empirically established.
• Polygraph-Specific Technical Standards (ASTM & APA): Technical execution is governed by ASTM International Committee E52 on Forensic Psychophysiology (including ASTM E2063 Standard Practice for Facility Preparation, and ASTM E2086 Standard Practice for Acceptance of Polygraph Data) and American Polygraph Association (APA) Standards of Practice. These standards dictate mandatory physiological recording channels (respiration, electrodermal, cardiovascular), validated question structures, objective numerical scoring protocols, and quality control reviews. Neither ASTM nor the American Polygraph Association has published population-specific validated protocols for autistic examinees, placing a heightened professional obligation on the examiner to conduct rigorous suitability evaluations.

Ethical practice dictates that examiners must decline or postpone testing whenever an individual’s capacity, sensory distress, motor restlessness, or medication status compromises procedural fairness or chart interpretability. The obligation to protect forensic integrity supersedes commercial or investigative expedience.

Conclusion

Neurodiversity is neither an automatic disqualifier for a polygraph examination nor a trivial factor that can be ignored. A diagnostic label alone does not determine whether an individual can successfully and fairly undergo testing.

Responsible, evidence-based practice requires an individual suitability assessment, painstaking pre-test question review, active comprehension testing, sensory adaptations, and transparent reporting. Crucially, practitioners must remain scientifically honest: reasonable adjustments render the process accessible and humane, but they do not resolve the separate, foundational question of population-specific psychophysiological validation. When neurodivergent individuals engage with forensic psychophysiology, they are entitled to an examination grounded in empirical clarity, professional caution, and rigorous scientific integrity.

References

• American Polygraph Association. (2021). Model policy for paired testing and quality control review. American Polygraph Association. polygraph.org
• ASTM International. (2021). Standard practice for minimum training and education requirements for individuals performing forensic psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) testing (ASTM E2063/E2086). ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/E2063
• Bagnall, R., Cadman, A., Russell, A., Brosnan, M., Otte, M., & Maras, K. L. (2023). Police suspect interviews with autistic adults: The impact of truth telling versus deception on testimony. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1117415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1117415
• Bharadwaj, A., Sweller, N., Dargue, N., & Jones, M. P. (2025). Differences in naturalistic deception between autistic and neurotypical individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-025-00521-1
• Blackhurst, T., Warmelink, L., Roestorf, A., & Hartley, C. (2025). Exploring lie frequency and emotional experiences of deceptive decision-making in autistic adults. Autism, 29(6), 1612–1626. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251315892
• British Psychological Society. (2021/2024). Working with neurodivergent individuals: Guidance on psychological assessment and reasonable adjustments. British Psychological Society. bps.org.uk
• Lim, A., Young, R. L., & Brewer, N. (2022). Autistic adults may be erroneously perceived as deceptive and lacking credibility. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4
• Logos, K., Lim, A., Brewer, N., & Young, R. L. (2025/2026). The behavioral presentation of autistic adults in a forensic interview. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 56(9), 3503–3522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-06805-z
• Mahoney, M. J. (2023). Polygraph testing of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (rev. 24 November 2023). Harrington & Mahoney.
• Sugrue, D. P. (2017). Forensic assessment of individuals on the autism spectrum charged with child pornography violations. In L. A. Dubin & E. Horowitz (Eds.), Caught in the Web of the Criminal Justice System: Autism, Developmental Disabilities, and Sex Offenses (pp. 112–139). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. (Recommendation and analysis cited from excerpt reproduced in Mahoney, 2023).

Dr Keith Ashcroft is a Chartered Psychologist, Chartered Scientist, investigative psychologist and polygraph examiner at the Centre for Forensic Neuroscience. The Centre provides professionally conducted polygraph examinations, Concealed Information Tests and statement analysis for legal, corporate and private clients across the UK. If you have questions about neurodiversity and polygraph suitability, please contact us to discuss your requirements in confidence.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. Suitability for any polygraph examination is determined on an individual basis following a comprehensive professional assessment conducted by a qualified examiner. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as medical advice, legal advice or clinical guidance. Readers seeking advice on medical matters, including medication adjustments, should consult their treating clinician. Readers seeking advice on legal matters, including their rights under the Equality Act 2010, should consult a qualified solicitor. The Centre for Forensic Neuroscience accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of this article alone.