brain fingerprinting
DESCRIPTION
ppt ideaTRANSCRIPT
1
ABSTRACT
Brain
Fingerprinting is 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. 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
felony crimes.
Every science
involves skill, judgment,
or "art" on the part of its
practitioners and the
science of Brain
Fingerprinting testing is
no exception. Every
forensic science provides
scientific data and
scientific conclusions for
the use of non-scientist
judges and juries, who
evaluate these on a
common-sense and legal
basis (i.e., a basis outside
the realm of science) in
reaching their
conclusions regarding the
facts and the law of the
case.
Investigators'
need for accurate,
scientific means of
linking perpetrators with
crime scene evidence has
inspired some scientists
to ask, "What does the
criminal always take with
him from the crime scene
that records his
involvement in the
crime?" The answer to
this question, of course,
is the Brain. The
purpose of this document
is to delineate the
boundaries of the science
of Brain Fingerprinting,
and specify what falls
inside and outside those
boundaries.
2
Index terms: - forensic
science, multifaceted
electroencephalographic
response analysis,
memory and encoding
related multifaceted
electroencephalographic
response, criminal
investigation, brain
waves.
INTRODUCTION
Forensic science
is constantly evolving,
from the discovery of the
uniqueness of the human
fingerprint,to
the ability to match a
criminal to his crime
through DNA profiling;
technology continues to
provide investigators
with new weapons. But
fingerprint and DNA
evidence are discovered
in the only one percent of
all cases. When trusted
techniques fail,
investigators must turn to
cutting-edge technology
to bring invisible clues to
light.
Every criminal
leaves evidence behind.
The key is to know how
to find it. A new
technique is testing a
way of tapping the
suspect’s mind, to turn
the criminal's own
memory against him.
Dr. Lawrence
Farwell is the Chairman
and Chief Scientist at
Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories in Seattle,
Washington. He has
developed a new
computerized system
known as brain
fingerprinting. It reads
the memory centers of
the human brain. He
believes that Brain
Fingerprinting will one
day be used to positively
link perpetrators to their
crimes.
Brain
Fingerprinting may seem
similar to Polygraph
(usually called a Lie
3
Detector), but it differs in
important ways. A
polygraph measures
physiologic responses
such as heart rate,
sweating, breathing, and
other processes that are
only indirectly related to
brain function. Brain
Fingerprinting
information comes
directly from brain
function. It and other
related tests do not
measure truthfulness but
seek to determine
whether the subject has a
particular memory.
SCIENCE OF BRAIN
FINGERPRINTING
When someone
commits a crime, his
brain records (i.e.) it has
a memory.
Brain
Fingerprinting seeks to
reveal that memory, by
showing the suspect
evidence taken from the
crime scene. A head band
with sensors is placed on
the subject.A series of
pictures or words is
flashed on the screen.
The computer records the
brain waves produced in
response to what the
4
subject sees.The
responses are recorded as
a wave form.
By analyzing the
pattern of waves, Farwell
can determine if the
subject is recognizing
what he is seeing. So
when you have a
situation where a crime
has been committed, and
there are certain details
only the suspect with
know, then we can test:
does this brain have these
details stored in it? If so,
then the suspect
committed the crime. If
not, then not.
BRAIN
FINGERPRINTING
DETECTS
INFORMATION
Brain Fingerprinting
detects information
stored in the human
brain. Sensors on a
headband, register the
subject's EEG, or brain
wave responses to the
computer images. The
EEG is fed through an
amplifier and into a
computer that uses
proprietary software to
display and interpret the
brain waves. A specific,
electrical brain wave
response, known as a
P300, is emitted by the
brain within a fraction of
a second when an
individual recognizes and
processes an incoming
stimulus that is
significant or
noteworthy. When an
irrelevant stimulus is
seen, it is seen as being
insignificant and not
noteworthy and a P300 is
not emitted.
In his research
on the P300 response,
Dr. Farwell discovered
that the P300 was one
5
aspect of a larger brain-
wave response that he
named a MERMER
(memory and encoding
related multifaceted
electroencephalo-graphic
response). MERMER
comprises a P300
response, occurring 300
to 800 ms after the
stimulus, and additional
patterns occurring more
than 800 ms after the
stimulus, providing even
more accurate results.
Mera
Using
multifaceted
electroencephalographi
c response analysis
(MERA), shows that a
specific multifaceted
electroencephalographic
response (MER), known
as a memory and
encoding related
multifaceted
electroencephalographic
response (MERMER), is
elicited when a person
recognizes and processes
a stimulus that is
particularly noteworthy
to him/her.
The MERMER includes:
the P300, an electrically
positive component
maximal at the parietal
scalp site, longer latency,
electrically negative
subcomponent prominent
at the frontal scalp site,
and Phasic changes in the
frequency and structure
of the signal.
Computer Controlled
Information not present
Information present
6
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 (Target,
Irrelevant, Probe), and
produces a determination
of "information present"
or "information absent,"
and a statistical
confidence level for this
determination.
SCIENTIFIC
PROCEDURE
Three types of
stimuli are presented:
Targets, Irrelevant, and
Probes. The Targets are
made relevant and
noteworthy to all
subjects, i.e., the subject
is given a list of the
Target stimuli and
instructed to press a
particular button in
response to Targets and
another button in
response to all other
stimuli. Since the
relatively rare Targets are
singled out in the task
being performed, the
Targets are noteworthy
for the subject, and each
Target stimulus elicits a
MERMER. Most of the
non-Target stimuli are
irrelevant, having no
relation to the situation
under investigation. This
7
Irrelevant do not elicit a
MERMER.
Some of the non-
Target stimuli are
relevant to the situation
under investigation.
These relevant stimuli
are referred to as Probes.
For a subject who has
participated in the
situation in question, the
Probes are noteworthy
due to the subject's
knowledge of that
situation, and, therefore,
Probes elicit a MERMER
when the subject is
knowledgeable. Probes
are indistinguishable
from the Irrelevant for a
subject who is not
knowledgeable about the
situation under
investigation, and thus
Probes do not elicit a
MERMER if the subject
is not knowledgeable.
Scalp recording was done
with disposable EEG
electrodes, similar to
those used in standard
EEG recording. The
electrodes were
embedded in a special
headband designed and
constructed by Dr.
Farwell's Human Brain
Research Laboratory.
SCIENTIFIC
EXPERIMENTS:
1 Harrington’s Case In April 2000,
Dr. Lawrence Farwell
conducted a Brain
Fingerprinting test on
Harrington. Brain
responses showed
conclusively that the
record stored in
Harrington’s brain did
not match the crime
scene and did match his
alibi, according to Dr.
Farwell. The Brain
Fingerprinting test results
were the first new
evidence supporting
Harrington’s claim of
innocence in over 2
2 Dr. Richardson’s
CommentDrew Richardson,
PhD a senior agent of the
FBI and a scientist in the
FBI Laboratories for 26
8
years says "I was
assigned to collaborate
with Dr. Farwell in the
research, design and
laboratory testing of a
research study on Brain
Fingerprinting
technology. In our study,
indeed in all the studies
to date, Brain
Fingerprinting testing has
proved to be 100%
accurate, wherever a
determination can be
made. I estimate that up
to 70% of major crimes
would someday be
appropriate for applying
Brain Fingerprinting
technology.
APPLICATIONS:
[1] Helps to Catch
a Serial KillerMacon County, Missouri
Sheriff Robert Daws on
engaged Dr. Farwell to
conduct a Brain
fingerprinting test on J.
B. Grinder, who had
been a suspect in an
unsolved murder case for
15 years. The test results
showed that the record
stored in his brain
matched critical details
of the crime scene that
only the perpetrator
would know. Faced with
an almost certain
conviction and a
probable death sentence,
Grinder pled guilty in
exchange for life in
prison without the
possibility parole. He
then also confessed to the
previously unsolved
murders of three other
women.
[2 ]National
Security
Applications In a terrorist act,
evidence such as
fingerprints or DNA may
not be available, but the
brain of the perpetrator is
always there — planning,
executing, and recording
the crime. There are
memories of the crime
stored in the brain of the
perpetrator and in the
brains of those who
helped plan the crime.
Brain Fingerprinting
9
Laboratories technology
can detect these records
stored in the brain and
help identify trained
terrorists before they
strike, including those
that are in long-term
“sleeper” cells. The
technology will also be
used to improve security
in areas like VISA
applications and the protection of classified information[3]ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE:
Brain fingerprinting can
be used to identify
persons suffering from
Alzheimers disease
where a person suffers
from loss of memory.
Limitations of Brainfingerprinting:[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.
[2] If, however, the
suspect knows
everything that the
investigators know about
the crime for some
legitimate reason, then
the test cannot be
applied.
[3] Another situation
where brain
fingerprinting is not
applicable is one where
the authorities have no
information about what
crime may have taken
place. For example, an
individual may disappear
under circumstances
where a specific suspect
had a strong motive to
murder the individual.
RESULT There are
many different ways to
present MERMER brain
response data visually.
Different methods
illustrate different
features of the data. No
10
one method can
adequately capture all of
the information
incorporated in the data
in a visually recognizable
form. One method that is
often effective in
providing a visual
representation of the
differences in brain
responses involves
plotting average
responses to Probe,
Target, and Irrelevant
stimuli as voltage over
time at a specific scalp
location.
Figures 1 and 2
present the average brain
responses to Probe,
Target, and Irrelevant
stimuli for two of the
subjects. Figure 1
presents data for a
subject who is
knowledgeable regarding
the investigated event.
Figure 2 presents data for
a subject who is not
knowledgeable regarding
the investigated event.
These figures
present plots of voltage
over time at the parietal
(Pz) scalp location. In
these figures, the
MERMER appears as a
positive voltage peak at
approximately 500 msec
followed by a negative
voltage deflection
maximal at
approximately 1200 -
1500 msec. (The latency
of these deflections
varies according to the
speed of the individual
subjects' brain
processing.)
The brain
responses of two subjects
whose data are presented
here are typical of their
respective groups,
knowledgeable and not
knowledgeable. As can
be clearly seen in the
figures, for the
knowledgeable subjects
(Figure 1) the MERMER
is elicited in response to
both Targets and Probes.
For the subjects who
were not knowledgeable
(Figure 2), the
MERMER is elicited
11
only in response to
Targets.
(Figure1)
Information
Present Brain
Response
(Figure 2) Information
Absent Brain Response
CONCLUSION
The 100-percent
accuracy and high
confidence level of the
results, however, provide
further support for results
from previous research
using brain MERMER
testing.
Today’s
sophisticated crime scene
analysis techniques can
sometimes place the
perpetrator at the scene
of the crime; however,
physical evidence is not
always present.
Knowledge of numerous
details of the crime, such
as the murder weapon,
the specific position of
the body, the amount of
money stolen -- any
12
information not available
to the public -- may
reveal that a particular
individual is associated
with the crime.
Additionally, if
research determines that
brain MERMER testing
is reliable enough that it
could be introduced as
evidence in court; it may
be the criminal
investigative tool of the
future.
REFERENCES
[1] Farwell LA,
Donchin E. The brain
detector: P300 in the
detection of
deception.
Psychophysiology
1986; 24:434
[2] Farwell LA,
inventor. Method and
apparatus for
multifaceted
electroencephalograp
hic response analysis
(MERA). US patent
5,363,858. 1994 Nov
15
[3] Farwell LA,
inventor. Method and
apparatus for truth
detection. US patent
5,406,956. 1995 Apr
18
13