Brain fingerprinting is a scientific technique developed by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell to detect whether specific information is stored in an individual's brain through measuring brain responses to stimuli. This method has demonstrated a 100% accuracy rate in various applications, including law enforcement, medical diagnostics, and advertising. While it offers significant advantages in quickly identifying criminals and gathering evidence, it also has limitations, such as not detecting intent or lies.

1. Brain
fingerprinting
presented by:
Preeti Kumari

2. Contents
1. Introduction
2. Quick overview of technique
3. Main Technique behind Brain Fingerprinting
4. Features
5. Instruments Required
6. Analysis Procedure
7. Different phases of Brain Fingerprinting
8. Applications in various fields
9. Advantages & disadvantages
10. Conclusion & future work
11. References

3. What is Brain Fingerprinting?
Brain Fingerprinting is
scientific technique to
determine whether or not
specific information is
stored in an individual's
brain.

4. Quick Overview
 Invented By Dr Lawrence A. Farwell.
 It’s a patented technique of proven accuracy in US government
tests.
 Ruled Admissible in one US Court as scientific evidence.
 It has a record of 100% Accuracy.

5. Technique
 When a person is exposed to a
rare, but meaningful
information, there is increase
in neuron activity which
results in an increase in
voltage, typically within 300–
1000 msec after the stimulus,
and that response with
increasing voltage is known as
P300.

6. The discovery of the P300-MERMER
In the initial brain fingerprinting research, Farwell and Donchin used
the P300 event-related brain potential (Farwell and Donchin 1986;
1988b; 1991; Farwell 1992a). Later Farwell discovered that the
P300 can be considered to be part of a larger response he called a
memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic
response or P300-MERMER

7. This pattern occurs within less than
a second after the stimulus
presentation, and can be readily
detected using appropriate amplifiers
and a computerized signal-detection
algorithm.
The person to be tested wears a
special headband with electronic
sensors that measure the responses
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.

8.  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 entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer
control, including presentation of the stimuli, recording of
electrical brain activity, a mathematical data analysis
algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of
stimuli and produces a determination of "information absent"
or "information present.

9.  No questions are asked and no answers are given during Farwell
Brain Fingerprinting.
 Brain Fingerprinting technology depends only on brain
information processing, it does not depend on the emotional
response of the subject.

10. Instrumental requirements:
• Personal Computer
• A Data acquisition board
• A Graphics Card for driving two monitors from one PC
• A four-channel EEG amplifier system.
• Software developed by the Brain Fingerprinting laboratories for
the data acquisition and analysis.

11. Analysis procedure
When brain fingerprinting test is done on any suspect then this type of
graph appears on the analyzer screen, by seeing these waves is comes to
the conclusion that whether the information is present in the person
mind or not. This graph shows three lines red, blue and green. Red line
indicates the information that suspect is expected to know. Green line
shows information that is not known to the suspect and the blue line
indicated the information of the crime that only suspect would know. In
this graph green line and the blue line are closely correlate with each
other that means the related information is not present in the suspect
brain. Information is not present in figure of not guilty.

13. Four phases of Farwell brain fingerprinting
Farwell Brain fingerprinting works similarly, except that the
evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of the
suspect (that is, in the brain as revealed by electrical brain
responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence.
There are four stages to Farwell 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.
4. Brain fingerprinting scientific result.

14.  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:

15. 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?

16. Medical Applications
 With early diagnosis, the progression
of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be
delayed through medications and
dietary and lifestyle changes.
 Pharmaceutical companies will be
able to determine more quickly the
effects of their new medications.

17. 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.
 Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.
 Reduces evasion of justice.

19. Advantages
1) The record stored in the brain of the perpetrator is often a rich source of
information that can be connected to the crime scene. Except in rare
cases where the crime has been recorded on video, the record stored in
the brain is generally the most comprehensive available record of the
crime, even though it is not perfect.
2) Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.
3) Record of 100% accuracy.
4) Identify terrorists and members of gangs, criminal and intelligence
organizations.
5) Reduce expenditure of money and other resources in law enforcement.
6) Reduce evasion of justice.
7) Access criminal evidence in the brain.
8) Human Rights Oriented.

20. Disadvantages
1) It detects information processing brain responses that reveal what
information is stored in the subjects brain. It does not detect how that
information got there, be it a witness or a perpetrator.
2) It detects only information, and not intent. The fact that the suspect
knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which
part of the intent is correct.
3) It is not applicable for general screening,
4) It does not detect lies. It simply detects information.
5) In the probe stimuli. Like all forensic science techniques, brain
fingerprinting depends on the evidence-gathering process which lies
outside the realm of science to provide the evidence to be scientifically
tested.
6) It’s not a substitute for effective investigation on the part of the
investigator or for common sense and good judgment on the part of the
judge and jury.

21. Conclusion and future scope
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 investigators fulfill an urgent need for governments, law
enforcement agencies, corporations, crime victims, and falsely accused
innocent suspects.

22. References
1. Ashwini v. Sharma ,dr. Ganesh s. Sable,(2013) “brain
fingerprinting” , Journal of information, knowledge and research in
electronics and communication,ISSN: 0975 – 6779, volume – 02,
issue - 02
2. Allen, JJ, Mertens, R(2009) “Limitations to the detection of
deception: true and false recollection are poorly distinguished using
an eventrelated potential procedure”, Social Neuroscience 4(6),
473-90.
3. Basar-Eroglu C, Basar E, Demiralp T, Schumann M (1992) “P300-
response: possible psychophysiological correlates in delta and theta
frequency channels”, A review International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 13, 2, 161-79.
4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 594
(1993).
5. Farwell LA and Smith SS. Using Brain MERMER Testing To
Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts Referenv

23. Thank you