37121756 Brain Fingerprinting

8/8/2019 37121756 Brain Fingerprinting

1/20

SEMINAR REPORT ON

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

C.V.RAMAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERINGBIJU PATTANAIK UNIVERSITY AND TECHNOLOGYDEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

SEMINAR REPORT SUBMITTED BYPriyadarsani Behera


2/20

C.V. RAMAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BHUBANESWAR

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Seminar Work entitled BrainFingerprinting is a bonafied work carried out byMiss.Priyadarsani Behera in partial fulfillment for theaward of the degree of Bachelor of Engineering inInformation technology of B.P.U.T during the year 2010-11.It is certified that all corrections/suggestions indicatedfor internal assessment have been incorporated in thereport deposited in the department library. The seminar report has been approved as it satisfies the academicrequirements in respect of Seminar Work prescribed for the Bachelor of Engineering Degree.

Name & Signature of guide Name & signature of H.O.D

Mr.R.K Swain Mrs.Rachita MishraProf. in IT H.O.D(IT)

ABSTRACT


3/20

Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the braingenerates a unique brain wave pattern when a personencounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magneticresonance imaging in lie detection derives from studiessuggesting that persons asked to lie show different patterns of brain activity than they do when being truthful.

Issues related to the use of such evidence in courts arediscussed, Measures the response to visual or audio stimulus.

In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has beendeveloped in the United States of America. This is called brainfingerprinting.

This invention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is said to detect even smoothcriminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventional liedetector test) with ease. The new method employs brainwaves, which are useful in detecting whether the personsubjected to the test, remembers finer details of the crime.

Brain fingerprinting is very useful in many applications suchas national security, medical diagnosis, advertising, criminal

justice system. Brain Fingerprinting testing detects scientifically,the presence or absence of specific information.

Priyadarsani Behera


4/20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives us great pleasure to express our deep sense of gratitude to our beloved HOD Mrs.Rachita Mishra and seminar guide Mr. R.K.Swainfor their constant inspiration, guidance, necessaryresource and working environment in the college.

Our sincere gratitude to our belovedprincipal, Dr. K.C.Patra for creating an intellectualambience which helped to bring out best of our ideas and exhibiting them in a creative andinnovative way.

It is with deep sense of gratitude and respect

that we express our most cordial and humblethanks to all staff members who have beenconstant source of inspiration and has providedsuggestion and encouragement which werendered with the touch of affection inaccomplishing the seminar.

Priyadarsani Behera(Regd No: 0701227093)


5/20

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. DEFINITION1.2 TECHNIQUE2. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY

2.1. SOURCES OF EEG ACTIVITIES2.2. EEG Vs FMRI & PET2.3. METHOD

3. ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS4. PHASES OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

4.1. PHASE 1: INVESTIGATION4.2. PHASE 2: INTERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT4.3. PHASE 3: SCIENTIFIC TESTING4.4. PHASE4: ADJUDICATION

5. CURRENT USES AND APPLICATION5.1 MEDICAL FIELD5.2 COUNTER TERRORISM5.3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE5.4. ADVERTISING APPLICATIONS

5.5. OTHER APPLICATIONS 6. LIMITATIONS7. COMPARISON WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGIES8. ADMISSBLITY OF BRAINFINGERPRINTING INCOURT9. RECORD OF 100% ACCURACY10. CONCLUSION11. REFERENCES


6/20

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

1. INTRODUCTION

Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed todiscover, document, and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regardingcrimes, and identify members of dormant terrorist cells. Brainfingerprinting is a technique that measures recognition of familiar stimuliby measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain fingerprintingwas invented be Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the suspect'sreaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect hadprior knowledge of the event or activity.

This test uses what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and EncodingRelated Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") response todetect familiarity reaction.

One of the applications is lie detection . Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell hasinvented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of FarwellBrain Fingerprinting, a new computer-based technology to identifythe perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring

brainwave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on

a computer screen. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has proven 100%accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for aUS intelligence agency and for the US Navy , and tests on real-lifesituations including actual crimes.

1.1 What is Brain Fingerprinting?Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individualrecognizes specific information related to an event or activity bymeasuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. The technique can be appliedonly in situations where investigators have a sufficient amount of specificinformation about an event or activity that would be known only to theperpetrator and investigator. In this respect, Brain Fingerprinting isconsidered a type of Guilty Knowledge Test, where the "guilty" party isexpected to react assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledgerely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm sweating andheart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity


7/20

via a fitted headband containing special sensors. Brain Fingerprinting issaid to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct from thefalse positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this is hotly disputedby specialized researchers .

1.2 TECHNIQUE:

Brain Fingerprinting Testing Detects Information

Brain Fingerprinting testing detects information stored in the human brain. A specific,electrical brain wave response, known as a P300, is emitted by the brain within afraction of a second when an individual recognizes and processes an incomingstimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it isseen as being insignificant and not noteworthy and a P300 is not emitted.The P300 electrical brain wave response is widely known and accepted in thescientific community. There have been hundreds of studies conducted and articles

published on it over the past thirty years. In his research on the P300 respon se, Dr.Farwell discovered that the P300 was one aspect of a larger brain -wave responsethat he named a MERMER (memory and encoding related multifacetedelectroencephalographic response). The MERMER comprises a P300 response,occurring 300 to 800 ms after the stimulus, and additional patterns occurring morethan 800 ms after the stimulus, providing even more accurate results.

Scientific Procedure

Brain Fingerprinting testing incorporates the following procedure. A sequence of words, pictures or sounds is presented under computer control for a fraction of second each. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," " irrelevant," and

"probes." The targets consist of information known to the suspect, which willestablish a baseline brain response (MERMER) for information known to besignificant to this suspect in the context of the crime. The subject is given a list of thetarget stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets andanother button in response to all other stimuli. Most of the non-target stimuli areirrelevant, having no relation to the situation under investigation. These irrelevant donot elicit a MERMER, and therefore establish a baseline brain response for information that is not significant to this suspect in the context of this crime. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation. These relevantstimuli are referred to as probes; information relevant to the crime. For a subject withknowledge of the investigated situation, the probes are noteworthy due to thatknowledge, and hence the probes elicit a MERMER, indicating "information present" information stored in the brain. For a subject lacking this knowledge, probes areindistinguishable from the irrelevant, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER,indicating "information absent" information not stored in the brain. When theinformation tested is crime-relevant and known only to the perpetrator investigators,then "information present" implies participation in the crime and "information absent"implies non-participation. Similarly, when the information tested is information knownonly to members of a particular organization or group (e.g., an intelligence agency or a terrorist group), then "information present" indicates an informed affiliation with thegroup in question.


8/20

Computer Controlled

The entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer control, includingpresentationof the stimuli, recording of electrical brain activity, a mathematical data analysis

algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces adetermination of "information present" or "information absent," and a statisticalconfidence level for this determination. At no time during the analysis do biases andinterpretations of a system expert affect the presentation or the results of thestimulus presentation.

2. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY:

Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electrical activity produced bythe brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp. Just as the activity in acomputer can be understood on multiple levels, from the activity of individualtransistors to the function of applications, so can the electrical activity of the brain be

described on relatively small to relatively large scales. At one end are actionpotentials in a single axon or currents within a single dendrite of a single neuron, andat the other end is the activity measure d by the EEG which aggregates the electricvoltage fields from millions of neurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens tohundreds 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 researchpurposes.

2.1 SOURCE OF EEG ACTIVITY:

Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies having different characteristicspatial distributions associated with different states of brain functioning such aswaking and sleeping. These oscillations represent synchronized activity over anetwork of neurons. The neuronal networks underlying some of these oscillations areunderstood (such as the thalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) whilemany others are not (e.g. the system that generates the posterior basic rhythm).voltage gain). A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10 V to 100 V inamplitude when measured from the scalp [2] and is about 1020 mV whenmeasured from subdural electrodes. In digital EEG systems, the amplified signal isdigitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after being passed through an anti -


9/20

aliasing filter. Since an EEG voltage signal represents a difference between thevoltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for the reading encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.

2.2 EEG VS FMRI AND PET:

EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity; for example, itstime resolution is very high (on the level of a single millisecond). Other methods of looking at brain activity, such as PET and FMRI have time resolution betweenseconds and minutes. EEG measures the brain's electrical activity directly, whileother methods record changes in blood flow (e.g., SPECT, FMRI) or metabolicactivity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers of brain electrical activity. EEG can beused simultaneously with FMRI so that high-temporal resolution data can berecorded at the same time as high-spatial-resolution data; however, since the dataderived from each occurs over a different time course, the data sets do notnecessarily represent the exact same brain activity. There are technical difficultiesassociated with combining these t wo modalities like currents can be induced inmoving EEG electrode wires due to the magnetic field of the MRI. EEG can berecorded at the same time as MEG so that data from these complimentary high-time-resolution techniques can be combined. Magneto -encephalography (MEG) is animaging technique used to measure the magnetic fields produced by electricalactivity in the brain via extremely sensitive devices such as superconductingquantum interference devices (SQUIDs). These measurements are commonly usedin both research and clinical settings. There are many uses for the MEG, includingassisting surgeons in localizing pathology, assisting researchers in determining thefunction of various parts of the brain, neuro -feedback, and others.


10/20

2.3 METHOD:

Scalp EEG, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on the scalp. Eachelectrode is connected to one input of a differential amplifier and a common systemreference electrode is connected to the other input of each differential amplifier.These amplifiers amplify the voltage between the active electrode and the reference(typically 1,000100,000 times, or 60100 dB of voltage gain). A typical adult humanEEG signal is about 10 V to 100 V in amplitude when measured from the scalp [2]and is about 1020 mV when measured from subdural electrodes. In digital EEGsystems, the amplified signal is digitized via an analog -to-digital converter, after being passed through an anti -aliasing filter. Since an EEG voltage signal representsa difference between the voltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for thereading encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.

3 THE ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:

In legal proceedings, the scope of the science of Brain Fingerprinting and all other

sciences is limited. The role of Brain Fingerprinting is to take the output of investigations and interviews regarding what information is relevant, to make ascientific determination regarding the presence or absence of that information in aspecific brain, and thus to provide the judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect. As with the other forensic sciences,the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us when to run a test, whom to test,or what to test for. This is determined by the investigator according to his skill and

judgment, and evaluated by the judge and jury. Recall the case of the possiblemurder by poisoning discussed above. All the science of forensic toxicology tells usis that there is or is not ricin or cadmium in specific cadaver. Science does not tell usto look for these specific poisons in this specific case. This is determined by theinvestigator according to his skill and judgment. Similarly, the science of Br ain

Fingerprinting does not tell us what information to test for. Again, this information isaccumulated by the investigator according to his skill and judgment. BrainFingerprinting tells us scientifically whether or not this specific information is store d ina specific persons brain. In the poisoning case mentioned above, science does nottell us whether a particular suspect is guilty. This is determined by the judge and juryaccording to their human judgment and common sense. The same is true of BrainFingerprinting, and every other scientific procedure. Again, the science of BrainFingerprinting does not tell us if a particular suspect is guilty or not. Only a judge and

jury can make a determination of guilt or innocence, and they make thisdetermination according to their human judgment, taking into account all of thescientific and other evidence. It is our view that science, whether it be BrainFingerprinting or any Other science does not and should not seek to infringe therealm of the judge and jury in making a determination of guilt or innocence.

Nor is science a substitute for skilful and effective investigation. Science depends oninvestigation, which is outside the realm of science, to determine when to test, whomto test, and what to test. The evidence provided by science and by investigationultimately must be weighed and evaluated by the human beings who are the judgeand jury, on the basis of their human judgment and common sense, in reaching their verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is fundamental to our legalsystem, and essential to the cause of justice, that the judge and jury must be


11/20

supplied with all of the available evidence to aid them in reaching their verdict. BrainFingerprinting provides solid scientific evi dence that must be weighed along withother available evidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a seriousmiscarriage of justice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluatethe evidence provided by the science of Brain Fing erprinting, when available, alongwith all of the other available evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting BrainFingerprinting evidence supporting a claim of innocence, such a denial would also beunconscionable human rights violation.

Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful deliberations of a judge and jury. It can play a vital role in informing these deliberations, however, by providingaccurate, scientific evidence relevant to the issues a t hand.

4 Phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting:

In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the

crime scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientificallycompared with evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that wouldplace the suspect at the crime scene. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting works similarly,except that the evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of thesuspect (i.e., in the brain as revealed by electrical brain responses) is informationalevidence rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to Farwell BrainFingerprinting:

1. Investigation2 . Interview of subject3. Scientific testing with brain fingerprintimg and4. Adjudication of guilt or innocence

PHASE 1 : I nvestigation

The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case is aninvestigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting test can be applied, aninvestigation must be undertaken to discover information that can be used in the test.The science of Brain Fingerprinting accurately determines whether or not specificinformation is stored in a specific persons brain. It detects the presence or absenceof specific information in the brain. Before we can conduct this scientific test, weneed to determine what information to test for. This investigation precedes and


12/20

informs the scientific phase which constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself. Therole of investigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain Finger printing test. As with any scientific test, if the outcome of the Brain Fingerprinting testis to be useful evidence for a judge and jury to consider in reaching their verdict , thenthe information tested must have a bearing on the perpetration of the crime.

PHASE 2 : I nterview of Subject

Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and before the BrainFingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidence can be linked to thesuspect, it can in some cases be very valuable to obtain the suspects account of thesituation. For example, if an investigation shows that specific fingerprints are foundat the scene of a murder, a suspect can be interviewed to determine if there may besome legitimate reason that his prints are there. If the suspects story is that he wasnever at the scene of the crime, then a match between his fingerprints and thefingerprints at that scene would be highly incriminating. If, on the other hand, thesuspects story is that he was at the scene for some legitimate reason just before thecrime, then fingerprints must be interpreted differently, particularly if there iscorroborating evidence of the suspects presence at the scene before the crime. Theinterview 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 thenleft the room where a murder was committed a short time before the murder, andthat he never saw or handled the murder weapon. In this context, a finding that thesuspects fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the doorknob would have littlevalue, but a finding that his fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon wouldprovide incriminating evidence.

Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is conducted. Thesuspect is asked if he would have any legitimate reason for knowing any of theinformation that is contained in the potential probe stimuli. This information isdescribed without revealing which stimuli are probes and which are irrelevant. For example, the suspect may be asked, The newspaper reports, which you no doubthave 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 ablackjack? If the suspect answers No, then a test result indicating that his braindoes indeed contain a record of which of these is the murder weapon can provideevidence relevant to the case.


13/20

PHASE 3 : Scientific Testing with Brain Fingerprinting

It is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process. BrainFingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specific information is stored ina specific persons brain.Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure. The input for this scientificprocedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated on the basis of the investigationand the interview. The output of this scientific procedure is a determination of information present or information absent for those specific pro be stimuli, alongwith a statistical confidence for this determination. This determination is madeaccording 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 noless: These specific details about this crime are (or are not) stored in this personsbrain. On the basis of this and all of the other available evidence, a judge and jurymake a determination of guilty or innocent.

PHASE 4 : A djudication of Guilt or I nnocence

The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal proceedings is theadjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside the realm of science. Theadjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the judge and jury. It isnot the domain of the investigator, or the scientist, or the computer. It is fundamentalto 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. Thequestion of guilt or innocence is and will always remain a legal one, and not ascientific one. Science provides evidence, but a judge and jury must weigh theevidence and decide.


14/20

5 Uses and Applications:

The various applications are as follows:-1. Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitive militaryand foreign intelligence screening.2. Individuals who were information present and information absent3. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli.4. To detect symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, Mental Depression and other formsof dementia including neurological disorders.5. Criminal cases.6. Advertisements (researches are being carried on).7. Counter-Terrorism.8. Security Testing.

5.1 In Medical field

y

The incidence of Alzheimers and other forms of dementia is growing rapidlythroughout the world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables earlydiagnosis economically and that can also accurately measure the effectiveness of treatments for these diseases Research has now demonstrated that analysis of theP300 brainwave can show dementia onset and progression. MERMER technology,developed and patented by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, incl udes the P300brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive measure than the P300 alone.

y With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often bedelayed through medications and dietary and lifestyle changes.

y Using the very precise measurements of cognitive functioning available with thistechnology, pharmaceutical companies will be able to determine more quickly theeffects of their new medications and potentially speed FDA approval.

y The non-invasive nature of P300/MERMER testing technology and the simplicity of its administration will allow primary care physicians to monitor the progress of their patients in their own offices and adjust treatments accordingly.

y An accurate, inexpensive and easy to administer test for Al zheimers and dementiawill improve the healthcare process dramatically, and help improve the quality of lifefor millions of people.

y The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built -in electrodes;technicians then present words, phrases and images that are both known andunknown to the patient to determine whether information that should be in the brainis still there. When presented with familiar information, the brain responds byproducing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron activity. The technician can usethis response to measure how quickly information is disappearing from the brain andwhether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the process.


15/20

5.2 Counterterrorism

Applicationsy Brain fingerprinting can help address the following critical elements in the fightagainst terrorism:

y Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly.

y 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.

y Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.

y Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership ro le within a terroristorganization.

y Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that the brain is central toall human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be peripheral evidence suchas fingerprints or DNA, but the brain of the perpetrator is always there, planning,executing, and recording the crime. The terrorist has knowledge of organizations,training and plans that an innocent person does not have. Until the invention of BrainFingerprinting testing, there was no scientific way to detect this fundamentaldifference. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical and timelysolution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. It is now possible todetermine scientifically whether or not a person has t errorist training and knowledgeof terrorist activities.

y With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific breakthrough has nowbecome a practical applied technology. A new era in security and intelligencegathering has begun. Now, terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identifiedquickly and accurately. No longer should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no reason why an innocent individual should be falselyimprisoned or convicted of terrorist activity. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determinewith an extremely high degree of accuracy those who are involved with terroristactivity and those who are not.

5.3 Criminal Justice:

y A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a

crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent suspect is that theperpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and theinnocent suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain Fin gerprinting testing, therewas no scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference.y Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. That is the role of a

judge and jury. This exciting technology gives the judge and jury new, scientificallyvalid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. DNA evidence and fingerprintsare available in only about 1% of major crimes. It is estimated that BrainFingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to 70% of these major crime s.


16/20

The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. The potential now existsto significantly improve the speed and Attention : accuracy of the entire system, frominvestigations to parole hearings.

y Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able t o dramatically reduce the costs associatedwith investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcementprofessionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailed knowledge of the crimes.

5.4 Advertising Applications :

y How do we know what information people retain from a media campaign? There isa new technology that allows us to measure scientifically if specific information, like aproduct brand, is retained in a persons memory. Brain Fingerprinting testing adds awhole new dimension to the methods of measuring advertising effectiveness, goingwell beyond subjective surveys and focus groups. The implications for theadvertising Industry are very exciting!

5.5 Other Applications :

In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances inmeasuring campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today areevaluated subjectively using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly moreadvanced, scientific methods to help determine the effectiveness of campaigns andbe very cost competitive with current methodologies. This technology will be able tohelp determine what information is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a branding campaign do people remember the brand, the product, etc.and how do the results vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure thecomparative effectiveness of multiple media types. In the insurance industry, BrainFingerprinting Laboratories will be able to help reduce the incidence of insurancefraud by determining if an individual has knowledge of fraudulent 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 wit ness or physicalevidence.


17/20

6. LIMITATIONS :

The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (in crime scenarios) asfollows:

1) Brain fingerprinting detects information -processing brain responses that revealwhat information is stored in the subjects brain. It does not detect how thatinformation got there. This fact has implications for how and when the technique canbe applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at the crime sceneand has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the crime and investigatorshave information that has not been released to the public, brain fingerprinting candetermine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In sucha case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence. If, however, the suspectknows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimatereason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in whichthis may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, butclaims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows detailsabout the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct atest, because the resulting information present response would simply show thatthe suspect knew the details about the crime knowledge which he already admitsand which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.

2) Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein asuspect and an alleged victim say, of an alleged sexual assault agree on thedetails of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brainfingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The fact that the suspectknows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which partysversion of the intent is correct.

3) In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators knowbecause he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there isno available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot beconducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about thecrime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient information that theperpetrator must have encountered in the course of committing the crime, but thesuspect claims not to know and would not know if he were innocent. This was thecase with Terry Harrington. By examining reports, interviewing witnesses, andvisiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had never been exposed to at hisprevious trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the record in Harringtonsbrain did not contain these salient features of the crime, but only the details about

the crime that he had learned after the fact.

4) Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid includinginformation that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows informationhe obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation,and standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from thestructuring of a test. News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do notinterfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simplylimit the material that can be tested. Even in highly publicized cases, there are


18/20

almost always many details that are known to the investigators but not released tothe public, and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that hewould have no way to know except by committing the crime.

7. Comparison with other technologies:

Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scenewith evidence on the person of the perpetrator. Similarly, Brain Fingerprintingmatches informational evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in thebrain. Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. The brain is alwaysthere, planning, executing, and recording the suspect's actions. Brain Fingerprintinghas nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to determine if someone has committed a specific crime or other act. No questions are asked andno answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA andfingerprints, the results are the same whet her the person has lied or told the truth atany time.

8. Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court:

The admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court has not yet been established. Thefollowing well established features of Brain Fingerprinting, however, will be relevantwhen the question of admissibility is tested in court.1) Brain Fingerprinting has been thoroughly and scientifically tested.2) The theory and application of Brain Fingerprinting have been subject to peer review and publication.3) The rate of error is extremely low -- virtually nonexistent -- and clear standardsgoverning scientific techniques of operation of the technology have been establishedand published.4) The theory and practice of Brain Fingerprinting have gained general acceptance inthe relevant scientific community.5) Brain Fingerprinting is non-invasive and non-testimonial.

LIMITATIONS :

The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (in crime scenarios) asfollows:1) Brain fingerprinting detects inf ormation-processing brain responses that revealwhat information is stored in the subjects brain. It does not detect how thatinformation got there. This fact has implications for how and when the technique canbe applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at the crime sceneand has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the crime and investigators

have information that has not been released to the public, brain fingerprinting candetermine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In sucha case, brain fingerprinting could provide 20 useful evidence. If, however, thesuspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for somelegitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstancesin which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of thecrime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knowsdetails about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason toconduct a test, because the resulting information present response would simply


19/20

show that the suspect knew the details about the crime knowledge which healready admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.

2) Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one where in asuspect and an alleged victim say, of an alleged sexual assault agree on thedetails of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brainfingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The fact that the suspectknows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which partysversion of the intent is correct.

3) In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators knowbecause he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there isno available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot beconducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about thecrime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient information that theperpetrator must have encountered in the course of committing the crime, but thesuspect claims not to know and would not know if he were innocent. This was thecase with Terry Harrington. By examining reports, interviewing witnesses, andvisiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had never been exposed to at hisprevious trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the record in Harringtonsbrain did not contain these salient features of the crime, but only the details aboutthe crime that he had learned after the fact.

4) Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid includinginformation that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows informationhe obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation,and standard brain fingerprinting pr ocedures eliminate all such information from thestructuring of a test. News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do notinterfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simplylimit the material that can be tested . Even in highly publicized cases, there arealmost always many details that are known to the investigators but not released tothe public, and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that hewould have no way to know except by committing the crime.


20/20

9. Record of 100% Accuracy

At the time of this first field application, Dr. Farwell's successes in the scientificlaboratory with his invention were already well known. In collaboration with FBIscientist Dr. Drew Richardson, Dr. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using FarwellBrain Fingerprinting to identify FBI agents based on their brain responses to wordsand phrases only an FBI agent would recognize. Tests conducted by Dr. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene S. Hernandez, Ph.D., alsoresulted in 100% accurate results. In research on contract with a US governmentintelligence agency, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting achieved 100% accuracy in provingthe presence or absence of a wide variety of evidence stored in th e brains of individuals involved in over 120 cases. Dr. Farwell has published extensively in thescientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technicalaudiences throughout the world. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subject ed torigorous peer review under US government sponsorship, and has been foundscientifically viable as well cases. Dr. Farwell has published extensively in thescientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technicalaudiences throughout the world. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected torigorous peer review under US governmen t sponsorship, and has been foundscientifically viable as well as revolutionary in its implications.

10. CONCLUSION:

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 fulfils an urgent need for governments, lawenforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, a nd falselyaccused innocent suspects .

REFERENCES:

1) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception.Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434.2) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection")with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531 -541.3) Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifacetedelectroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994Nov 15.4) Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3.5) Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18.6) Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and cl inical neurophysiology:human event-related potentials. Amsterdam:

Documents

37121756 Brain Fingerprinting