Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
87730024 brain-fingerprinting-technology-document
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

87730024 brain-fingerprinting-technology-document


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION Why Brain Fingerprinting??? Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may or may not be many kinds of peripheral evidence, but the brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The fundamental difference between a perpetrator and a falsely accused, innocent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the details of the crime stored in his brain, and the innocent suspect does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically. The secrets of Brain Fingerprinting: Matching evidence at the crime scene with evidence in the brain When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting provides a means to objectively and scientifically connect evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is similar to the process of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence found at the scene of the crime; only the evidence evaluated by Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain.) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, noninvasive, non-stressful, and non-testimonial manner. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 1
  • 2. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-2 HISTORY Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes known and relevant information differently from the way it processes unknown or irrelevant information (Farwell & Donchin 1991). The brain’s processing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG (electroencephalograph) .Farwell’s brain fingerprinting originally used the well known P300 brain response to detect the brain’s recognition of the known information. Later Farwell discovered the MERMER("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response"), which includes the P300 and additional features and is reported to provide a higher level of accuracy than the P300 alone. In peer-reviewed publications Farwell and colleagues report over 99% accuracy in laboratory research and real-life field applications. In independent research William Iacono and others who followed identical or similar scientific protocols to Farwell’s have reported a similar high level of accuracy. Brain fingerprinting has been applied in a number of high-profile criminal cases, including helping to catch serial killer JB Grinder and to exonerate innocent convict Terry Harrington after he had been falsely convicted of murder. Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court. Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of front. Although independent scientists who have used the same or similar methods as Farwell’s brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate results, different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in as low as chance accuracy as well as susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should generalize to all other techniques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured, including brain fingerprinting. Brain Fingerprinting was an international finalist in the Global Security Challenge 2008 in London. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 2
  • 3. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-3 TECHNIQUE The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is asked to count. The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a response to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a murder weapon, victim's face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell (. Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types: 1)“irrelevant” stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject 2) “target” stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject 3) “probe” stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies knowing. Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators, and not to the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these relevant stimuli. The scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any reason unrelated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told why the probes are significant (e.g., “You will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon”), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant. Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting 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, Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 3
  • 4. Brain Fingerprinting Technology unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subject’s brain response to relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject’s brain. By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting system mathematically computes a determination of “information present” (the subject knows the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or “information absent” (the subject does not know the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination. This determination is mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the scientist. 3.1.Background and terminology: "Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, document, and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes, and to identify individuals with a specific training or expertise such as members of dormant terrorist cells or bomb makers. It has also been used to evaluate brain functioning as a means of early detection of Alzheimer’s and other cognitively degenerative diseases, and to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising by measuring brain responses. The technique is described in Dr. Farwell's paper “Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal”, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2001 by Dr. Farwell and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sharon Smith of the FBI. The paper describes a test of brain fingerprinting, a technology based on EEG that is purported to be able to detect the existence of prior knowledge or memory in the brain. The P300 occurs when the tested subject is presented with a rarely occurring stimulus that is significant in context (for example, in the context of a crime) . When an irrelevant stimulus is presented, a P300 is not expected to occur. The P300 is widely known in the scientific community, and is also known as an oddball-evoked P300. While researching the P300, Dr. Farwell created a more detailed test that not only includes the P300, but also observes the stimulus response up to 1400 ms after the stimulus. He calls this brain response a MERMER, memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The P300, an electrically positive component, is maximal Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 4
  • 5. Brain Fingerprinting Technology at the midline parietal area of the head and has a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800ms.The MERMER includes the P300 and also includes an electrically negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms. According to Dr. Farwell, the MERMER includes additional features involving changes in the frequency of the EEG signal, but for the purposes of signal detection and practical application the MERMER is sufficiently characterized by the P300 and the following negative component in the brain response. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 5
  • 6. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-4 THE FOUR PHASES OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING THE FANTASTIC FOUR!!! In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the crime scene. Brain Fingerprinting works similarly, except that the evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of the suspect (i.e., in the brain as revealed by electrical brain responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to Brain Fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting: 1. Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection; 2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection; 3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis; and 4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result. In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an expert in Brain Fingerprinting examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify details of the crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. The expert then conducts the Brain Evidence Collection in order to determine whether or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the suspect. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Brain Fingerprinting system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. This determination and statistical confidence constitute the Scientific Result of Brain Fingerprinting: either "information present" ("guilty") – the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" ("innocent") – the details of the crime is not stored in the brain of the suspect. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 6
  • 7. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-5 SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE 5.1.Informational Evidence Detection: The detection of concealed information stored in the brains of suspects, witnesses, intelligence sources, and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement, government and private investigations, and intelligence operations. Brain Fingerprinting presents a new paradigm in forensic science. This new system detects information directly, on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity, measured non-invasively from the scalp. Since Brain Fingerprinting depends only on brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject. The Brain MERMER: Brain Fingerprinting utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. A memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it is insignificant and not noteworthy, and the MERMER response is absent. The MERMER occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm. Scientific Procedure: Brain Fingerprinting incorporates the following procedure. A sequence of words or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," "irrelevants," and "probes." The targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects: the subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets, and to press another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a MERMER. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 7
  • 8. Brain Fingerprinting Technology Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the crime. These irrelevants do not elicit a MERMER. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the crime or situation under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes. For a subject who has committed the crime, the probes are noteworthy due to his knowledge of the details of the crime, and therefore probes elicit a brain MERMER. For an innocent subject lacking this detailed knowledge of the crime, the probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimuli. For such a subject, the probes are not noteworthy, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER. 5.2.Computer Controlled: The entire Brain Fingerprinting System is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli and recording of electrical brain activity, as well as a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information present" ("guilty") or "information absent" ("innocent"), and a statistical confidence level for this determination. At no time during the testing and data analysis do any biases and interpretations of a system expert affect the stimulus presentation or brain responses. The devices used in brain fingerprinting Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 8
  • 9. Brain Fingerprinting Technology Brain waves: Using brain waves to detect guilt How it works: A Suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information represented by Different colored lines: -----Red: information the suspect is expected to know -----Green: information not known to suspect -----Blue: information of the crime that only perpetrator would know NOT GUILTY: Because the blue and green Lines closely correlate, suspect does Not have critical knowledge of the crime Dept.ECE,SITAMS GUILTY: because the blue and red Lines closely correlate, and suspect has critical knowledge of the crime Page 9
  • 10. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-6 SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS Scientific Experiments, Field Tests, and Criminal Cases: Scientific studies, field tests, and actual criminal cases involving over 120 individuals described in various scientific publications and technical reports by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell have verified the extremely high level of accuracy and overall effectiveness of Brain Fingerprinting. The system had 100% accurate scientific results in all studies, field tests, and actual cases conducted at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a US intelligence agency, the Alexandria (VA) Police Department, the offices of the Macon County (MO) Sheriff, and other organizations and individuals. Some of these tests are described below. Terry Harrington's Brain-Wave Responses Y-axis: voltage in micro volts at the parietal (Pz) scalp site. X-axis: time in milliseconds (msec). Stimulus was presented at 0 msec. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 10
  • 11. Brain Fingerprinting Technology Determination: information absent. Statistical Confidence: 99.9% Conclusion: Certain significant details of the murder of John Schweer are not stored in Terry Harrington's brain. Determination: information present. Statistical Confidence: 99.9% Conclusion: Certain significant details of the murder of John Schweer are stored in Terry Harrington's brain. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 11
  • 12. Brain Fingerprinting Technology Current uses and research: Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime, terrorist act, or incident stored in the brain and 2) detecting a specific type of knowledge, expertise, or training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qaeda -trained terrorists. The seminal paper by Dr. Farwell and Emmanuel Donchin reported successful application of the technique in detecting knowledge of both laboratory mock crimes and real-life events, with no false positives and no false negatives. In a study with the FBI, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson, former chief of the FBI’s chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprinting to show that test subjects from specific groups could be identified by detecting specific knowledge which would only be known to members of those groups. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 nonagents were exposed to stimuli (words, phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer screen. The probe stimuli contained information that would be common knowledge only to someone with FBI training. Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the FBI agents from the non-agents. The CIA has also funded Farwell’s research. In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and colleagues used brain fingerprinting to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to have or not to have the specific information regarding military medicine stored in their brains. In another CIA-funded study, brain fingerprinting correctly detected which individuals had participated in specific real-life events, some of which were crimes, based on the record stored in their brains. Accuracy again was 100%. Dr. Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a further study in which brain fingerprinting detected real-life events that was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. In another CIA-funded study, a group of subjects enacted a simulated espionage scenario and were then tested on relevant stimuli in the form of pictorial probes. Brain fingerprinting correctly identified all individuals who were “information present” and “information absent”. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 12
  • 13. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-7 RESULTS Results of the Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington: For the test on Schweer's murder, the determination of Brain Fingerprinting was "information absent," with a statistical confidence of 99.9%. The information stored in Harrington's brain did not match the scenario in which Harrington went to the crime scene and committed the murder. The determination of the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information was "information present," with a confidence of 99.9%. The information stored in Harrington's brain did match the scenario in which Harrington was elsewhere (at a concert and with friends) at the time of the crime. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 13
  • 14. Brain Fingerprinting Technology CHAPTER-8 APPLICATIONS Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime, terrorist act, or incident stored in the brain and 2) detecting a specific type of knowledge, expertise, or training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qaeda -trained terrorists, There are several other areas in which Brain fingerprinting can be used to make life easier and can aid mankind in many ways. Key fields where brain fingerprinting can be used are • Advertising • Security (counter terrorism) • Medical applications • Computer Hacking • Visa Applications • Polygraph "False-Positive“ • Corporate Security • Security Clearance. ADVERTISING: • What specific information do people retain from advertising? • What specific elements in an ad campaign have the most impact? • How effective is the product branding strategy? COUNTER TERRORISM: • Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. • Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts. MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: • With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be delayed through medications and dietary and lifestyle changes. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 14
  • 15. Brain Fingerprinting Technology • Using the very precise measurements of cognitive functioning available with this technology, pharmaceutical companies will be able to determine more quickly the effects of their new medications. Limitations of brain fingerprinting:  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.  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 .  Brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening,  Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 15
  • 16. Brain Fingerprinting Technology Dept.ECE,SITAMS Page 16