Tech.ppt2

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

A SEMINAR REPORT

Submitted by

AWDHESH KUMAR

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in

COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
KOCHI- 682022

OCTOBER 2010

Division of Computer Engineering
School of Engineering
Cochin University of Science & Technology
Kochi-682022

CERTIFICATE

Certified that this is a bonafide record of the seminar work titled

Brain Fingerprinting
Done by

Awdhesh Kumar
of VII semester Computer Science & Engineering in the year 2010 in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Degree of Bachelor of Technology
in Computer Science & Engineering of Cochin University of Science & Technology.

Dr.David Peter S Mr. V. Damodaran
Head of the Division Seminar Guide

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I thank God almighty for making my endeavor a success. I am
indebted to my respected teachers and supporting staffs of Division of
Computer Engineering for providing as my inspiration and guidance for my
seminar.

I am grateful to Dr. David Peter S., Head of Division of Computer Engineering
for giving such an opportunity to utilize all resources needed for the seminar.

I am highly obliged to my guide Mr. V. Damodaran and seminar coordinator
Mr. Sudheep Elayidom M. for their valuable instructions, guidance and
corrections in my seminar and its presentation.

I also want to express sincere gratitude to all friends for their support and
encouragement during the seminar presentation and their active participation in
questioning session for the success of the seminar.

ABSTRACT

Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a
unique brain wave pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of
functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection derives from studies
suggesting that persons asked to lie show different patterns of brain activity than
they do when being truthful. Issues related to the use of such evidence in courts
are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported
by enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in
court.

In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed
in the United States of America. This is called “brain fingerprinting”. This
invention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is said
to detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventional
lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which are
useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer
details of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary
information, the brain wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, who
are very excited about the new kid on the block.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. DEFINITION

1.2. TECHNIQUE

2. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY 6

2.1. SOURCES OF EEG ACTIVITIES

2.2. EEG Vs FMRI & PET

2.3. METHOD

3. ROLE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 10

3.1. PHASE 1: INVESTIGATION

3.2. PHASE 2: INTERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT

3.3. PHASE 3: SCIENTIFIC TESTING

3.4. PHASE4: ADJUDICATION

4. ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 15

5. CURRENT USES AND APPLICATION 18

5.1 COUNTER TERRORISM

5.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE

5.3 MEDICAL FIELD

5.4. ADVERTISING APPLICATIONS

5.5. OTHER APPLICATIONS

6. LIMITATIONS 23

7. CONCLUSIONS 26

REFERENCES 27


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative technique
that measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave
responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen.
Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the
suspect's reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect
had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell calls
the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction.
One of the applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented,
developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting,
a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime
accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-
relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Farwell Brain
Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on
FBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on
real-life situations including actual crimes.

1.1 DEFINITION:

Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual
recognizes specific information related to an event or activity by measuring
electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures presented on a
computer screen. The technique can be applied only in situations where
investigators have a sufficient amount of specific information about an event or

Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 3


activity that would be known only to the perpetrator and Investigator. In this
respect, Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty Knowledge

Test, where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly to the relevant detail
of the event of activity.

Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a
suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g.,
palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical
brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors.

Fig. 1.1 Waves to detect guilt
Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge
distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this is
hotly disputed by specialized researchers.



1.2 TECHNIQUE:

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic
sensors that measure the electroencephalography from several locations on the
scalp. In order to calibrate the brain fingerprinting system, the testee is
presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures, and a series of
relevant stimuli, words, and pictures. The test subject's brain response to these
two different types of stimuli allow the testor to determine if the measured brain
responses to test stimuli, called probes, are more similar to the relevant or
irrelevant responses.

The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal
known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300
milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a
rare vs. a common stimuls or a stimulus the proband is asked to count. The
novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response to
stimuli related to the crime in question e.g., a murder weapon or a victim's face.
Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee to
issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli.

Brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain finger
printing does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by
emotional responses. Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the
polygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based physiological signals
such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also, unlike polygraph testing,
it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the
truth.



CHAPTER 2

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY
Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electrical
activity produced by the brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp.
Just as the activity in a computer can be understood on multiple levels, from the
activity of individual transistors to the function of applications, so can the
electrical activity of the brain be described on relatively small to relatively large
scales. At one end are action potentials in a single axon or currents within a
single dendrite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the activity measured
by the EEG which aggregates the electric voltage fields from millions of
neurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens to hundreds of electrodes
positioned on different locations at the surface of the head. EEG signals (in the
range of milli-volts) are amplified and digitalized for later processing. The data
measured by the scalp EEG are used for clinical and research purposes.

Fig. 2.1 Electrography



2.1 SOURCE OF EEG ACTIVITY:

Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies having
different characteristic spatial distributions associated with different states of
brain functioning such as waking and sleeping. These oscillations represent
synchronized activity over a network of neurons. The neuronal networks
underlying some of these oscillations are understood (such as the
thalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) while many others are not
(e.g. the system that generates the posterior basic rhythm).

Fig. 2.2 Adaptive noise module

2.2 EEG VS FMRI AND PET

EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity;
for example, its time resolution is very high (on the level of a single


millisecond). Other methods of looking at brain activity, such as PET and FMRI
have time resolution between seconds and minutes.

EEG measures the brain's electrical activity directly, while other
methods record changes in blood flow (e.g., SPECT, FMRI) or metabolic
activity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers of brain electrical activity.

EEG can be used simultaneously with FMRI so that high-temporal-
resolution data can be recorded at the same time as high-spatial-resolution data,
however, since the data derived from each occurs over a different time course,
the data sets do not necessarily represent the exact same brain activity. There
are technical difficulties associated with combining these two modalities like
currents can be induced in moving EEG electrode wires due to the magnetic
field of the MRI.

EEG can be recorded at the same time as MEG so that data from
these complimentary high-time-resolution techniques can be combined.
Magneto-encephalography (MEG) is an imaging technique used to measure the
magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain via extremely
sensitive devices such as superconducting quantum interference devices
(SQUIDs). These measurements are commonly used in both research and
clinical settings. There are many uses for the MEG, including assisting surgeons
in localizing pathology, assisting researchers in determining the function of
various parts of the brain, neuro-feedback, and others.

2.3 METHOD:
Scalp EEG, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on the
scalp. Each electrode is connected to one input of a differential amplifier and a



common system reference electrode is connected to the other input of each
differential amplifier. These amplifiers amplify the voltage between the active
electrode and the reference (typically 1,000–100,000 times, or 60–100 dB of
voltage gain). A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in
amplitude when measured from the scalp [2] and is about 10–20 mV when
measured from subdural electrodes. In digital EEG systems, the amplified signal
is digitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after being passed through an
anti-aliasing filter. Since an EEG voltage signal represents a difference between
the voltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for the reading
encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.



CHAPTER 3

ROLE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The application of Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case
involves four phases: investigation, interview, scientific testing, and
adjudication. Of these four phases, only the third one is in the domain of
science. The first phase is undertaken by a skilled investigator, the second by an
interviewer who may be an investigator or a scientist, the third by a scientist,
and the fourth by a judge and jury.

This is similar to the forensic application of other sciences. For
example, if a person is found dead of unknown causes, first there is an
investigation to determine if there may have been foul play. If there is a suspect
involved, the suspect is interviewed to determine what role, if any, he says he
has had in the situation. If the investigation determines that the victim may have
been poisoned using ricin or cadmium, two rare and powerful poisons, then
scientific tests can be conducted to detect these specific substances in the body.
Then the evidence accumulated through the test, the investigation, and the
interview are presented to a judge and jury, who make the adjudication as to
whether a particular suspect is guilty of a particular crime. In such a case, the
science of forensic toxicology reveals only whether or not specific toxins are in
the body. It does not tell us when or where to look for toxins, or which toxins to
look for. We must rely on investigation to provide the necessary guidance on
these issues. The science of forensic toxicology also does not tell us whether a
particular suspect is innocent or guilty of a crime. The question of guilt or
innocence is a legal one, not a scientific one, and the adjudication is made by a
judge and jury, and not by a scientist or a computer.



3.1 PHASE 1: Investigation

The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in a
criminal case is an investigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting test
can be applied, an investigation must be undertaken to discover information that
can be used in the test. The science of Brain Fingerprinting accurately
determines whether or not specific information is stored in a specific person‟s
brain. It detects the presence or absence of specific information in the brain.
Before we can conduct this scientific test, we need to determine what
information to test for. This investigation precedes and informs the scientific
phase which constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself. The role of
investigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain Finger
printing testt. As with any scientific test, if the outcome of the Brain
Fingerprinting test is to be useful evidence for a judge and jury to consider in
reaching their verdict, then the information tested must have a bearing on the
perpetration of the crime.

3.2 PHASE 2: Interview of Subject

Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and
before the Brain Fingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidence
can be linked to the suspect, it can in some cases be very valuable to obtain the
suspect‟s account of the situation. For example, if an investigation shows that
specific fingerprints are found at the scene of a murder, a suspect can be
interviewed to determine if there may be some legitimate reason that his prints
are there. If the suspect‟s story is that he was never at the scene of the crime,
then a match between his fingerprints and the fingerprints at that scene would
be highly incriminating. If, on the other hand, the suspect‟s story is that he was



at the scene for some legitimate reason just before the crime, then fingerprints
must be interpreted differently, particularly if there is corroborating evidence of
the suspect‟s presence at the scene before the crime.

The interview with the suspect may help to determine which
scientific tests to conduct, or how to conduct the tests. For example, a suspect
may say that he entered and then left the room where a murder was committed a
short time before the murder, and that he never saw or handled the murder
weapon. In this context, a finding that the suspect‟s fingerprints matched the
fingerprints on the doorknob would have little value, but a finding that his
fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide incriminating
evidence.

Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is
conducted. The suspect is asked if he would have any legitimate reason for
knowing any of the information that is contained in the potential probe stimuli.
This information is described without revealing which stimuli are probes and
which are irrelevant. For example, the suspect may be asked, “The newspaper
reports, which you no doubt have read, say that the victim was struck with a
blunt object. Do you have any way of knowing whether that murder weapon
was a baseball bat, a broom handle, or a blackjack?” If the suspect answers
“No,” then a test result indicating that his brain does indeed contain a record of
which of these is the murder weapon can provide evidence relevant to the case.



3.3 PHASE 3: Scientific Testing with Brain Fingerprinting

It is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process.
Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specific
information is stored in a specific person‟s brain.

Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure. The
input for this scientific procedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated on
the basis of the investigation and the interview. The output of this scientific
procedure is a determination of “information present” or “information absent”
for those specific probe stimuli, along with a statistical confidence for this
determination. This determination is made according to a specific, scientific
algorithm, and does not depend on the subjective judgment of the scientist.

Brain Fingerprinting tells us the following, no more and no less:
“These specific details about this crime are (or are not) stored in this person‟s
brain.” On the basis of this and all of the other available evidence, a judge and
jury make a determination of guilty or innocent.

3.4 PHASE 4: Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence

The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal
proceedings is the adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside the
realm of science. The adjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain
of the judge and jury. It is not the domain of the investigator, or the scientist, or
the computer. It is fundamental to our legal system that decisions of guilt or
innocence are made by human beings, juries of our peers, on the basis of their
human judgment and common sense. The question of guilt or innocence is and



will always remain a legal one, and not a scientific one. Science provides
evidence, but a judge and jury must weigh the evidence and decide the verdict.



CHAPTER 4

THE ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In legal proceedings, the scope of the science of Brain
Fingerprinting – and all other sciences – is limited. The role of Brain
Fingerprinting is to take the output of investigations and interviews regarding
what information is relevant, to make a scientific determination regarding the
presence or absence of that information in a specific brain, and thus to provide
the judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt or
innocence of a suspect.

As with the other forensic sciences, the science of Brain
Fingerprinting does not tell us when to run a test, whom to test, or what to test
for. This is determined by the investigator according to his skill and judgment,
and evaluated by the judge and jury.

Recall the case of the possible murder by poisoning discussed
above. All the science of forensic toxicology tells us is that there is or is not
ricin or cadmium in specific cadaver.

Science does not tell us to look for these specific poisons in this
specific case. This is determined by the investigator according to his skill and
judgment.

Similarly, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us what
information to test for. Again, this information is accumulated by the
investigator according to his skill and judgment. Brain Fingerprinting tells us
scientifically whether or not this specific information is stored in a specific
person‟s brain.



In the poisoning case mentioned above, science does not tell us
whether a particular suspect is guilty. This is determined by the judge and jury
according to their human judgment and common sense. The same is true of
Brain Fingerprinting, and every other scientific procedure.

Again, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us if a
particular suspect is guilty or not. Only a judge and jury can make a
determination of guilt or innocence, and they make this determination according
to their human judgment, taking into account all of the scientific and other
evidence. It is our view that science, whether it be Brain Fingerprinting or any
other science, does not and should not seek to infringe the realm of the judge
and jury in making a determination of guilt or innocence.

Fig. 4.1 Wave for guilty

Nor is science a substitute for skillful and effective investigation. Science
depends on investigation, which is outside the realm of science, to determine
when to test, whom to test, and what to test. The evidence provided by science
and by investigation ultimately must be weighed and evaluated by the human
beings who are the judge and jury, on the basis of their human judgment and
common sense, in reaching their verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the
accused.



It is fundamental to our legal system, and essential to the cause of
justice, that the judge and jury must be supplied with all of the available
evidence to aid them in reaching their verdict. Brain Fingerprinting provides
solid scientific evidence that must be weighed along with other available
evidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a serious miscarriage of
justice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluate the
evidence provided by the science of Brain Fingerprinting, when available, along
with all of the other available evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting Brain
Fingerprinting evidence supporting a claim of innocence, such a denial would
also be unconscionable human rights violation.

Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful deliberations
of a judge and jury. It can play a vital role in informing these deliberations,
however, by providing accurate, scientific evidence relevant to the issues at
hand.



CHAPTER 5

USES AND APPLICATIONS
The various applications are as follows:-

1. Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitive
military and foreign intelligence screening.

2. Individuals who were “information present” and “information absent”

3. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli.

4. To detect symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, Mental Depression and other
forms of dementia including neurological disorders.

5. Criminal cases.

6. Advertisements (researches are being carried on).

7. Counter-Terrorism.

8. Security Testing.

5.1 COUNTER TERRORISM:

Brain fingerprinting can help address the following critical
elements in the fight against terrorism:

1: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or
indirectly.



2: Aid in identifying trained terrorists with the potential to commit future
terrorist acts, even if they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been active for
years.

3: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance
or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.

4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist
organization.

Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that the
brain is central to all human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be
peripheral evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, but the brain of the perpetrator
is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The terrorist has
knowledge of organizations, training and plans that an innocent person does not
have. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientific
way to detect this fundamental difference.

Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical and
timely solution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. It is now
possible to determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist training
and knowledge of terrorist activities.

With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific
breakthrough has now become a practical applied technology. A new era in
security and intelligence gathering has begun. Now, terrorists and those
supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately. No longer should
any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no reason
why an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of



terrorist activity. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremely
high degree of accuracy those who are involved with terrorist activity and those
who are not.

5.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has
committed a crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent
suspect is that the perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in
their brain, and the innocent suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain
Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientifically valid way to detect this
fundamental difference.

Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. That
is the role of a judge and jury. This exciting technology gives the judge and jury
new, scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. DNA
evidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major crimes. It is
estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to
70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be
profound. The potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and
accuracy of the entire system, from investigations to parole hearings. Brain
Fingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce the costs associated
with investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcement
professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailed
knowledge of the crimes.

5.3 MEDICAL FIELD
„Brain Fingerprinting‟ is the patented technology that can measure
objectively, for the first time, how memory and cognitive functioning of
Alzheimer sufferers are affected by medications. First generation tests have


proven to be more accurate than other routinely used tests, and could be
commercially available in 18-24 months.

Fig. 5.3.1 Medical treatment

The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes;
technicians then present words, phrases and images that are both known and
unknown to the patient to determine whether information that should be in the
brain is still there. When presented with familiar information, the brain responds
by producing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron activity. The technician
can use this response to measure how quickly information is disappearing from
the brain and whether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the process.

5.4 ADVERTISING APPLICATIONS:

How do we know what information people retain from a media
campaign? There is a new technology that allows us to measure scientifically if
specific information, like a product brand, is retained in a person‟s memory.
Brain Fingerprinting testing adds a whole new dimension to the methods of



measuring advertising effectiveness, going well beyond subjective surveys and
focus groups. The implications for the advertising Industry are very exciting!

5.5 OTHER APPLICATIONS:

In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer
significant advances in measuring campaign and media effectiveness. Most
advertising programs today are evaluated subjectively using focus groups. We
will be able to offer significantly more advanced, scientific methods to help
determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost competitive with
current methodologies. This technology will be able to help determine what
information is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a
branding campaign do people remember the brand, the product, etc. and how do
the results vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure the
comparative effectiveness of multiple media types.

In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will be
able to help reduce the incidence of insurance fraud by determining if an
individual has knowledge of fraudulent or criminal acts. The same type of
testing can help to determine if an individual has specific knowledge related to
computer crimes where there is typically no witness or physical evidence.



CHAPTER 6

LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (in
crime scenarios) as follows:

1) Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that
reveal what information is stored in the subject‟s brain. It does not detect how
that information got there. This fact has implications for how and when the
technique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at
the crime scene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the
crime and investigators have information that has not been released to the
public, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject
possesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide
useful evidence. If, however, the suspect knows everything that the
investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test
cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this may be the
case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be
a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the
crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test,
because the resulting “information present” response would simply show that
the suspect knew the details about the crime – knowledge which he already
admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a
perpetrator.

2) Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one
wherein a suspect and an alleged victim – say, of an alleged sexual assault –
agree on the details of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the



parties. Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The fact
that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us
which party‟s version of the intent is correct.

3) In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know
because he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial,
there is no available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test
cannot be conducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the
details about the crime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient
information that the perpetrator must have encountered in the course of
committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know and would not know
if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By examining
reports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding
areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that
Harrington had never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain
fingerprinting test showed that the record in Harrington‟s brain did not contain
these salient features of the crime, but only the details about the crime that he
had learned after the fact.

4) Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid
including information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect
knows information he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a
criminal investigation, and standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate
all such information from the structuring of a test. News accounts containing
many of the details of a crime do not interfere with the development of a brain
fingerprinting test, however; they simply limit the material that can be tested.
Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that are
known to the investigators but not released to the public, and these can be used


as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know
except by committing the crime.



CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS
Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology
for solving crimes, identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects,
with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies,
actual criminal cases, and other applications. The technology fulfills an urgent
need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators,
crime victims, and falsely accused, innocent suspects.



REFERENCES

1) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of
deception. Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434.

2) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie
detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531-
541.

3)Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifaceted
electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994
Nov 15.

4) Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of
occupational information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3.

5) Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent
5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18.

6)Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical
neurophysiology: human event-related potentials. Amsterdam:


Tech.ppt2

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Tech.ppt2

Recently uploaded

Tech.ppt2