This technology generally applied on criminals. This technology determines actual culprit of the crime through investigation.

1. 1
1.INTRODUCTION:
Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, numerous technological innovations
have signaled landmark changes in how authorities conduct investigations. From finger-
printing to DNA testing, these one-time technological marvels turned police investigation
staples have shaped the way that justice is conceptualized in America, as well as the way in
which society interacts and is influenced by law enforcement. One such new technology
carries with it an emerging potential to revolutionize the investigatory landscape Brain
Fingerprinting (―BF‖) the law enforcement technology. The future of police investigations
may very well be under construction in Seattle, Washington, where Dr.Lawrence A. Far-
well has created Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (―BFL‖), a privately held company
created to pursue the study and application of BF.BF testing, in a nutshell, is an examina-
tion designed to determine if particular information is familiar to a test subject in a specific
context (such as that of a crime).Essentially, a BF test asks a suspect’s brain if it is familiar
with a particular place, time, or action, and does so using brain monitoring technology that
is nearly impossible to deceive. BF has been called ―a perfect example of a technology at the
tipping point making its way from the lab into our culture,‖ and ―an intriguing, novel, sci-
entific venture that is inching toward the doors of courtrooms everywhere.‖ Although BF
may ―sound like something straight out of a science-fiction movie‖ it is part of a growing
trend of technological innovations that are rapidly coming to the forefront in today’s
heightened level of security. As one commentator has explained, ―These aren’t cinematic
gadgets from a James Bond set. They are real world technologies that were on recently dis-
play for members of Congress as lawmakers consider new steps to beef up security at air-
ports, border crossings, and other facilities around the country. TheP300 event-related
brain potential which is the key element of most of the published brain-wave based decep-
tion research. The ―Guilty Knowledge Test‖ or GKT, which in a form modified for P300
methods, yielded the P300 protocol for detecting concealed, crime-related information. The
issue of P300-based tests’ accuracies Farwell claims that his method is based on a brain ac-
tivity index, the ―MERMER,‖ ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroen-
cephalographic Response")which goes beyond P300 methods

2. 2
2.Background
Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the
MERMER, or ―Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Re-
sponse .‖ He claims that the P300 event-related potential (ERP, discussed below) is but one
element of the MERMER. It will be seen later that P300 is very likely the basis and essence
of the MERMER. Indeed, at the Harrington Appeal hearing of 2000 Harrington vs Iowa
2000 In any case, it seems unlikely that Farwell would argue against the assertion that the
P300 ERP was the brain wave which first impelled several investigators to study the poten-
tial of EEG waves as deception indices. The history of this ongoing research program will
make this clear. First, however, a brief review of P300 phenomenology is in order. It is well
known that between an electrode placed on the scalp surface directly over brain and anoth-
er electrode connected to a relatively neutral (electrically) part of the head (i.e., remote
from brain cells, such as the earlobe), an electrical voltage, varying as a function of time,
exists. These voltages comprise the spontaneously ongoing electroencephalogram or EEG,
and are commonly known as brain waves. If during the recording of EEG, a discrete oc-
curs, such as a light flash or tone pip, the EEG breaks into a series of larger peaks and
troughs lasting up to two seconds after the stimulus. These waves, signaling the arrival in
cortex of neural activity generated by the stimulus, comprise the wave series called the
ERP ,the EEG potential series related to the stimulus event. Actually, the ERP ―rides on‖
the ongoing EEG, by which it is sometimes obscured in single trials. Thus, one typically av-
erages the EEG samples of many repeated presentation trials of either the same stimulus or
stimulus category (e.g., male names), and the ensuing averaged stimulus-related activity is
revealed as the ERP, while the non-stimulus-related features of the EEG average out, ap-
proaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful
pieceof information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more fre-
quently presented, non-meaningful stimuli.
3.WHY BRAIN FINGERPRINTING?
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.

3. 3
As it can be applicable to determine the fundamental difference between a crime attempted
person and a falsely accused.
This theory means that the brain processes known, relevant information differently from
the way it is processes unknown or irrelevant information .The specific pattern
EEG(electroencephalograph) used in this technique is to process the known information of
a crime attempted person .Later Farwell discovered the MERMER , which includes the
P300 and additional features and is reported to provide a higher level of accuracy than the
P300 alone.
4.WHY IS IT NAMED SO?
Brain fingerprinting was so named because which has nothing to do with memories, it is
about identifying individual biometrics. Like fingerprinting it detects match between evi-
dence from the crime scene and evidence on the person of the suspect.
5.Definition:
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific in-
formation 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 activity that would be known only to the perpetrator and Investigator. In this re-
spect, 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 (pol-
ygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on meas-
urement of autonomic arousal (e.g. Palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting
measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors.
6. Electroencephalography (EEG)
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 un-
derstood on multiple levels, from the activity of individual transistors to the function of appli-
cations, 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 den-
drite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the activity measured by the EEG which ag-

4. 4
gregates 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.
7.Equipment & technology
Referring to FIG. 1, the Brain Fingerprinting System 100 comprises a personal computer
110 (e g., Pentium IV, 1 GHz IBM PC); a data acquisition board (e.g., Scientific Solutions
Lab Master AD); two monitors 120, 130; a four-channel EEG amplifier system 140 (e.g.,
Neuroscience); and software for data acquisition and signal processing. The electrodes to
used to measure electrical brain activity are held in place by a special headband 150 de-
signed and constructed by the inventor for this purpose. The software presents the stimuli,
collects the electroencephalographic data, and analyzes the data.
Stimulus duration of the visual stimuli, e.g., a picture or a word presented on a computer
screen, is relatively brief, e.g., 300 msec. It will be understood that stimuli can also be pre-
sented through the auditory modality, e.g., as auditory verbal stimuli presented through
headphones. Inter-stimulus interval, or stimulus onset asynchrony, is about 2-3 seconds
from the onset of one stimulus to the next stimulus onset. The length of the inter-stimulus

5. 5
interval selected depends primarily on the stimulus characteristics: a longer inter-stimulus
interval is used when the stimuli are more complex and therefore take longer for the sub-
ject to process.
Brain electrical activity is recorded from three midline scalp locations on the head: frontal
(Fz), central (Cz) and parietal (Pz), referenced to linked ears or linked mastoids (behind
the ear). It will be understood that additional brain signals measured from other scalp loca-
tions may be used as well. Electrical activity generated by eye movements is recorded by an
electrode above one eye.
Brain electrical activity is amplified, analog filtered (e.g., low-pass 30 Hz, high pass 0.1 Hz)
digitized (e.g., at 333 Hz), analyzed on-line, and stored on a memory device 160. Each trial
consists of the brain activity recorded in conjunction with one stimulus presentation, about
2 seconds of data.
The full set of stimuli is randomized and the stimuli are presented to the subject one at a
time on a video monitor 120. Once all of the stimuli have been S presented, they are ran-
domized again and presented again. This is repeated until a specified number of trials have
been presented, or until a sufficient number of artifact-free trials have accumulated.
During data collection, the stimuli are displayed to the subject on one video monitor 120,
and the experimenter views another monitor 130. Operator displays include 1) the same
thing the subject sees, 2) summary textual information, and 3) waveform displays.
In addition to displaying the results of the analysis on the monitor 130, the system may also
print out on a printer 170 the statistical results, the summary of the textual information,
and the waveform displays.

6. 6
The previous state of the art in Brain Fingerprinting involved a single system deployed at
the location of the subject. There are numerous situations in which it would be optimal to
deploy only the necessary part of the system locally, and accomplish the balance of the
tasks remotely. Referring to FIG. 2, the stimulus presentation can take place at the local
site 200 where the subject 206 is located. The local site 200 contains components that are
similar in operation and function to those disclosed in FIG. 1. The local site 200 comprises
a local computer 202 for data acquisition and stimulus presentation, which is similar in op-
eration and function to the computer 110 in FIG. 1; two local monitors 210, 212, which are
similar in operation and function to the two monitors 120, 130 disclosed in FIG. 1; a four-
channel EEG amplifier system 214, which is similar in operation and function to the EEG
amplifier system 140 disclosed in FIG. 1; a headband 216, which is similar in operation and
function to the headband 150 disclosed in FIG. 1; and a local printer 218, which is similar
in operation and function to the printer 170 disclosed in FIG. 1.
Data analysis and/or stimulus set construction can take place remotely at a remote site 250.
A remote expert 260 can oversee a local test in real time, viewing data via a remote monitor
256, and can transmit not only guidance to the local personnel 208, regarding the conduct
of a test, through a remote data link. Also, remote commands can be transmitted from the
remote site 250 from a remote computer (a data analysis/command computer) 252 to a lo-
cal computer (a data acquisition/stimulus presentation computer) 202 through a remote
data link 230, regarding the conduct of the test. In addition to displaying the results of the
analysis on the remote monitor 256, the system may also print out on a remote printer 254
the statistical results, the summary of the textual information, and the waveform displays.
This remote interaction allows for efficient use of the time of the most highly trained and
qualified system experts. Top experts can remain at a headquarters site, while individuals
with lesser expertise can conduct tests at local sites throughout the world with real-time
participation and oversight from headquarters. Another advantage of such a division of the
system is enhanced safety and convenience for the system experts, when the technology is
applied, for example, in prisons, overseas locations, or combat situations. Moreover, situa-
tions may arise in which a local expert 208 has specific necessary organizational affiliations,
clearances, or other factors affecting access, while the remote expert has a higher level of
expertise. A division of the system will allow us to take advantage of both.
Obviously, it is necessary for the stimuli to be presented at the local site 200, where the sub-
ject 206 is located. It is necessary to have a direct, local connection with the subject's head
to measure the brain waves. It is necessary—or at least extremely desirable with respect to
obtaining a clear signal—to amplify and digitize the brain responses locally. Once this has
been accomplished, and the data are in the local computer 202, as much information as is
necessary for the task at hand—oversight, data analysis, etc.—can be transmitted to the
remote site 250. Brain electrical activity that is amplified and analog filtered may be stored
by a local memory device 204 or a remote memory device 258. Moreover, commands can

7. 7
be transmitted from the remote site 250 to the local site 200 through a remote data link 230
prior to or during the test itself. Where necessary or useful, a one-way or two-way video
and/or audio link can be provided between the local site 200 and the remote site 250. This
remote data link 230 can provide for observation and/or communication between a remote
expert 260 and the local expert 208 and/or subject 206.
The newest Brain Fingerprinting system is designed to provide for remote access through
telephone lines, through radio and satellite communications, and, where available, through
high-speed internet links and virtual private networks.
8.P300:
 The P300 (P3) wave is an event related potential (ERP) which can be recorded via
electroencephalography (EEG) as a positive deflection in voltage at a latency of
roughly 300 ms in the EEG.
 The P300 signal is an aggregate recording from a great many neurons.
 P300 waveform must be evoked using a stimulus delivered by one of the sensory
modalities.

8. 8
9. Comparison with other technology
 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 victims face. Be-
cause it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee to issue ver-
bal 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.
10. Role in criminal Proceeding
The application of brain fingerprinting in a criminal case involves four phases.
Phase 1: Investigation
Phase 2: Interview
Phase 3 : Scientific testing
Phase 4: Adjudication
10.1 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 under-
taken 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.

9. 9
10.2 Phase 2: Interview
Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and before the Brain Finger-
printing 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 sus-
pect 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 rea-
son 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 finger-
prints matched the fingerprints on the doorknob would have little value, but a finding that
his fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide incrimi
nating evidence. Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is con-
ducted. 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

10. 10
suspect answers ―No,‖ then a test result indicating that his brain does indeed contain a rec-
ord of which of these is the murder weapon can provide evidence relevant to the case.
10.3 Phase 3: Scientific testing
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 determina-
tion of ―information present‖ or ―information absent‖ for those specific probe stimuli,
along with a statistical confidence for this determination. This determination is made ac-
cording 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 inno-
cent

11. 11
10.4 Phase 5: Adjudication of guilt or innocence
The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal proceedings is the adjudi-
cation 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.
11. Uses and application
The various applications are as follows:-
 Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitive military
and foreign intelligence screening.
 Individuals who were ―information present‖ and ―information absent‖
 To detect symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, Mental Depression and other forms
of dementia including neurological disorders.
 Criminal cases.
 Advertisements (researches are being carried on):
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 di-

12. 12
mension to the methods of measuring advertising effectiveness, going well beyond subjec-
tive surveys and focus groups. The implications for the advertising Industry are very excit-
ing!
 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 communi-
cations 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.
 Security Testing:
The person is asked to wear the head band with electronic sensors that measure the Elec-
troencephalography from several locations on the scalp. As we know that human brain is
central to human acts everything what we see is stored in brain in the form of music, video
or text. As per the brain fingerprinting technology unique brain wave will be created by in-
dividual brain when they see the things which is displayed on the screen and this brain
wave can be used as password to access his/her account by inserting ATM card. The brain
wave which is generated will be stored in a computer controlled device and when the per-
son need to use the ATM this brain wave can be used to prove him as a authenticated per-
son In this type of password authentication, it is very difficult for hackers to know the
password and even if they try to know they cannot regenerate the same brain wave using
brain fingerprinting because brain wave is unique to the individual person. This type of se-
curity provides the highest level of security in ATM.

13. 13
(System Flow Diagram for Multimodal Biometrics and Two-Tier Security
in ATM System)

14. 14
12.Other Application
In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances in meas-
uring campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today are evaluated
subjectively using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly more advanced, scien-
tific 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 infor-
mation is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a branding cam-
paign 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 fraudu-
lent 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 physi-
cal evidence.
13. LIMITATIONS:
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 incriminat-
ing. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting "information pre-
sent" 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. There are one another problem intent of
subject cannot be identified properly by brain fingerprinting.
If the suspect knows everything what would be ask by the tester then he/she can control his
mind and may give wrong information confidently and could not be caught by the machine.
We human have some limitations about memory and it could affect the procedure because
if the incident is forgotten from the memory it could be useless, but this could be lesser be-
cause the criminal may not forget this kind of activity. Even in appropriate cases: "The
technique, however, can't be used on the mentally ill, heavy alcoholics and 'might fail on a
habitual criminal."
14.Case Study

15. 15
In 1999, Farwell used his technique to solve a 1984 murder in Missouri. Police strongly
suspected a local woodcutter, James Grinder, of kidnapping, raping and murdering Julie
Helton, a 25 year-old woman, but had lacked the evidence to convict him. He agreed to un-
dergo brain fingerprinting to demonstrate his innocence.
Farwell flashed on a computer screen details of the crime that only the murderer would
have known, including items taken from the victim, where the victim's body was located,
items left at the crime scene and details of the wounds on the body of the victim.
"What his brain said was that he was guilty," he said. "He had critical, detailed infor-
mation only the killer would have. The murder of Julie Helton was stored in his brain, and
had been stored there 15 years ago when he committed the murder."
Grinder pleaded guilty a week later in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, avoiding
the death penalty. He also confessed to three other murders of young women.
In 2000, brain fingerprinting underwent its first legal challenge in the case of Terry Har-
rington, an Iowa man who had spent 23 years in prison for the 1978 murder of a security
guard. Farwell's tests suggested conclusively that Harrington was innocent since he did not
have knowledge of the crime scene.
The judge in the case admitted the evidence but did not free the suspect, saying it was not
clear test results would have led to a different verdict in the original trial. The case is be-
fore the Supreme Court of Iowa.
15. Conclusion
Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes, identi-
fying 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, corpora-
tions, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects. From the above
we can now conclude we are going to see a lot more of this new technology is the near fu-
ture as it will help us make our society a better place to live thus we this Brain Fingerprint-
ing technology serves its purpose and makes our lives better.