brain fingerprinting

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


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


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


response (MER), known

as a memory and

encoding related

multifaceted


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


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.


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

brain fingerprinting

Documents