Posts: 54
Threads: 19
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation:
0
[attachment=14131]
ABSTRACT
Throughout history, humans in society have had a need to determine the identity of individuals who have committed crimes. In the last century, there has been unprecedented progress in developing accurate, scientific methodologies for
Connecting a suspect with a crime. This paper reports the discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, a new technology that uses brain waves to connect evidence stored in the brain of a suspect with evidence connected with a crime, and discusses Brain Fingerprinting from the perspective of scientific progress in criminal investigations.
The promise of this new technology is to provide an accurate and scientific means through which perpetrators can be identified, and the innocent can be cleared, based on the evidence from the one place where a comprehensive record of every crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting has been preceded by two major breakthroughs in criminal investigation in the last hundred years.
One of the great breakthroughs of modern criminal investigation came when it was discovered that human fingerprints A secondbreakthrough was the recent discover of"DNA fingerprinting." Like fingerprints, DNA can be used to connect or match evidence that is collected at the crime scene.
Although both DNA fingerprinting and conventional fingerprinting are highly accurate, they share two drawbacks. Both techniques involve considerable extra work and skill for investigators. Collecting and preserving fingerprints and biological samples involve significant costs in time, resources, and money. More serious drawback is DNA samples and fingerprints are found in only a very small percentage of cases about one in a hundred.
There is a tremendous need for other accurate, scientific means of matching evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects, particularly in the cases where no fingerprints or DNA samples are left at the scene.
This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal take with him from the crime scene that records his involvement in the crime?" T h e answer to this question, of course, is the brain. The brain of the criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera -- and like his DNA and fingerprints,the brain always stays with the criminal.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, numerous technological innovations have signaled landmark changes in how authorities conduct investigations. From fingerprinting 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. Farwell 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 examination 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, scientific 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 display for members of Congress as lawmakers consider new steps to beef up security at airports, border crossings, and other facilities around the country. The P300 event-related brain potential which is the key element of most of the published brainwave based deception 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 activity index, the MERMER, ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") which goes beyond P300 methods.
1.1BACKGROUND
Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the MERMER, or Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response . 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 potential 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 another 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 stimulus event occurs, 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 averages 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, approaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful piece of information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more frequently presented, non-meaningful stimuli.
1.2 EARLY P300-BASED DECEPTION DETECTORS
Fabiani, Karis, and Donchin, (1983) showed that if a list of words, consisting of rare, previously learned (i.e., meaningful) and frequent novel words were presented one at a time to a subject, the familiar, previously learned words but not the others elicited a P300. As suggested above, Rosenfeld, Nasman, Whalen,Cantwell, Mazzeri (1987) recognized that the Fabiani et a. (1983) study suggested that P300 could be used to detect concealed guilty knowledge, i.e., P300 could be used as a potential lie detector: Therefore, P300 could index recognition of familiar items even if subjects denied recognizing them. From this fact, one could infer deception. The P300 would not represent a lie per se, but only recognition of a familiar item of information, the verbal denial of which would then imply deception. Farwell has also emphasized this distinction on his web site, although as an academic nicety which in no way affects the claims of the BF approach. Farwell and Smith (2001), however, seem to have over-extended this distinction: Brain MERMER testing has almost nothing in common with lie detection or polygraphy. Polygraphy is a technique of interrogation and detection of deception Brain MERMER testing does not require any questions of or answers from the suspect. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during the procedure, and in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth at any time. This assertion is misleading: In fact the subject does give behavioral button press responses. One button means No, I don t recognize this stimulus. If the guilty subject presses this no button to a guilty knowledge item, he is lying with his button press, if not his voice. Lying is the clear inference if there is no other innocuous explanation for the brain response, and there is no doubt that P300/MERMER testing is clearly relevant to lie detection. Indeed, the terms Interrogative polygraphy and lie detection are in the subtitle of Farwell and Donchin (1991), Farwell s only peer-reviewed paper on P300-based deception detection in a psychology, neuroscience or psychophysiology journal. Finally, when Farwell and Smith (2001; not a journal in psychology, psychophysiology, or neuroscience) stated, in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth, they are incorrect (about the major P300 element of MERMER), and, not surprisingly, did not cite any supportive literature. In fact, there are many peer-reviewed, published studies in which the opposite is shown, and it is discussed why truthful subjects in fact produce much larger P300s than subjects giving dishonest responses to the same questions (e.g., Ellwanger, J. Rosenfeld, , Hankin, & Sweet, 1999; Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Jhee, M. 2000; Rosenfeld, Rao, Soskins, & Miller, 2003,). Soon after seeing Fabiani et al. (1983), our lab planned and executed a study (Rosenfeld, Cantwell, Nasman, Wojdak, Ivanov, & Mazzeri, 1988) in which subjects pretended to steal one of ten items from a box. Later, the items were repeatedly presented to the subject by name, one at a time, on a display screen, and we found that the items the subjects pretended to steal (the probes), but not the other, irrelevant items, evoked P300 in 9 of 10 cases. In that study there was also one special, unpredictably presented stimulus item, the target, to which the subjects were required to respond by saying yes so as to assure us they were paying attention to the screen at all times, and would thus not miss probe presentations. They said no to all the other items, signaling non-recognition, and thus lying on trials containing the pretended stolen items. The special target items also evoked P300, as one might expect, since they too were rare and meaningful (task-relevant). (The 1988 study was actually the second of two closely related publications, the first having been published as Rosenfeld . et al., 1987.) This paradigm had many features of the guilty knowledge test (GKT) paradigm (developed by Lykken in 1959; see Lykken, 1998) except that P300s rather than autonomic variables were used as the indices of recognition. This required various other departures from the classic GKT method, such as signal averaging and target stimuli. Farwell and Donchin (1991) reported that in the 20 guilty cases, correct decisions were possible in all but two cases, a detection rate of 90%. Indeed, this was not impressive given that the subjects were trained to remember the details of their crimes, a procedure having limited ecological validity in field circumstances in which training of a suspect on details of a crime he/she was denying would not be possible. In the innocent condition, only 85% were correctly classified, yielding an overall detection rate of 87.5%. In the second experiment of Farwell and Donchin, (1991), the four volunteering subjects were all previously admitted wrongdoers on the college campus. Their crime details were well-detected with P300, but these previously admitted wrongdoers no doubt had had much rehearsal of their crimes at the hands of campus investigators, teachers, parents, etc. Therefore, one can ask: was the P300 test detecting incidentally acquired information versus previously admitted, well rehearsed information? Moreover, the n=4 was hardly convincing, and in one of the four innocent tests, no decision could be rendered, meaning that a correct decision was possible in only three of four (75%) innocent cases.
Posts: 58
Threads: 30
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
[attachment=7393]
Brain fingerprinting
ABSTRACT
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection derives from studies suggesting 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 are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported by enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court.
In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America. This is called brain fingerprinting . This invention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is said to detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventional lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which are useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer details of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary information, the brain wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, who are very excited about the new kid on the block.
INTRODUCTION
Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative technique that measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the suspect's reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity.
This test uses what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. One of the applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, 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. Farwell 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 actual crimes.
1.1 BACK GROUND
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information 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 only so as to prove a successful result.
Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the MERMER, or "Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic response ." 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 the essence of the MERMER.
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 another 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 stimulus event occurs, 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 averages 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, approaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful piece of information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more frequently presented, non-meaningful stimuli.
1.2 Founder
Dr. Farwell is the inventor of Brain Fingerprinting technology. He also invented the Farwell Brain Communicator, which allows an individual to communicate directly from the brain to a computer and speech synthesizer using electrical brain activity, so that paralyzed people can communicate, "talk," and control computers and other devices even though incapable of moving.
WORKING PRINCIPLE
Entire Brain finger printing system is under computer control.
The various activities includes:
1. Presentation of the stimuli
2. Recording the electrical brain activity
3. Determination of the information present or absent
4. Mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses
5. Statistical confidence level for the determination
2.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE BF TEST IN CRIMINAL CASES
There are four phases of using BF in a criminal case: investigation, interviewing, scientific testing, and adjudication.
Investigation
Initially, the investigation process consists of the test administrator (or a designee) determining the salient features of the crime, which are used to make "probes," or bits of information that would seem innocuous to someone who did not commit the crime under investigation, but which would be present in the mind of the culprit.
This is research-intensive, especially in cases that have been highly publicized and where details have been widely disseminated in such cases, the test administrator must find rather obscure information that has not been made public and that is unknown to an innocent test subject (through trial, interrogation, or by some other manner).
To an innocent person who does not have knowledge of the crime, probes would be indistinguishable from other irrelevant (stimuli which the test administrator knows that the subject has no knowledge of) and would therefore elicit no physiological response.
The test administrator must be careful to select probes in such a manner that someone who does not know about the crime would find them as equally plausible as the irrelevant chosen. Probes selected in cases where BF testing has been employed in the past have included the material used to bind a victim's hands, what was printed on a victim's t-shirt, and the landscape that the perpetrator of an offense ran through while leaving the scene of the crime.
2.1.2 Interviewing
Once these probes have been collected and prepared, and prior to the operation of the BF test itself, the test administrator interviews the subject. This interview is an attempt to determine exactly what the subject knows, so as to discover any innocuous, non-criminal explanation as to why he or she would have knowledge of certain information relevant to the investigation, or if such stimuli are significant to the subject for reasons that are independent of the crime at issue.
Any such probes will thereafter be removed from the test. Aside from helping authorities to sharpen their probe into the crimes that they are investigating, the interview serves as a baseline for the test administrator to ensure that the subject has knowledge of the control stimuli ("targets") that will be shown to him or her.
2.1.3 Testing
After the interview and prior to the administration of the test itself, the test administrator selects targets (stimuli which the test administrator, through the interview process, knows that the subject has knowledge of) and irrelevant. BF tests are comprised of approximately one-sixth targets, one sixth probes, and two-thirds irrelevant stimuli.
Subjects are then fitted with a sensory headband that is connected to an EEG, which in turn digitizes brain wave activity and feeds it into a computer. Subjects are then shown a series of pictures and words on a computer monitor, and the sensory headset tracks their responses. As each image is shown, the subject clicks a mouse button to advance to the next stimuli, so as to keep his or her attention on the test itself.36 The key to proper administration of the test is for the administrator to present each item in context and to identify exactly the category of the stimuli (e.g., "one of the following is the murder weapon")
The subject's brain wave responses are then analyzed. The test looks for a specific response called a P300: a positive electric voltage that is present 300 milliseconds after a subject is exposed to a stimulus with which he or she is familiar. A MERMER short for "Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response" will be present in cases where the subject recognizes a stimulus (including targets and potentially some or all probes), and will be absent where they do not (including irrelevant and potentially some or all probes).
The resulting finding of "information present" or "information absent" thus represents a scientific determination of whether the subject has knowledge of the probe stimuli tested. Because the exact brain response of each subject will differ slightly, the individual response of the particular subject being tested to the targets and irrelevant presented will be used as a baseline for comparison.
Posts: 44
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
[attachment=7103]
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Abstract:
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection derives from studies suggesting 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 are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported by enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court.
In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America. This is called brain fingerprinting . This invention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is said to detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventional lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which are useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer details of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary information, the brain wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, who are very excited about the new kid on the block.
Introduction:
Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative technique that measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the suspect's reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. One of the applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, 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. Farwell 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 actual crimes..
Posts: 47
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation:
0
[attachment=7797]
CONTENTS
Introduction
Definition
Technique
Four phases of Farwell Brain
Fingerprinting
5. Applications
6. Comparison with other
technologies
7. Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting
in court:
8. Accuracy
9. Conclusion
Introduction:
Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell.
It is a technique that measures recognition
of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen.
What is Brain Fingerprinting? ? ?
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information 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.
It 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 (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors.
Technique:
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the electroencephalography from several locations on the scalp.
In order to calibrate the brain fingerprinting system, the testee is presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures, and a series of relevant stimuli, words, and pictures.
The test subject's brain response to these
two different types of stimuli allow the
testor to determine if the measured brain
responses to test stimuli, called probes,
are more similar to the relevant or irrelevant
responses.
Posts: 51
Threads: 25
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
Abstract:
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection derives from studies suggesting 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 are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported by enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court.
In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America. This is called brain fingerprinting. This invention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is said to detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventional lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which are useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer details of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary information, the brain wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, who are very excited about the new kid on the block.
Posts: 53
Threads: 24
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Posts: 56
Threads: 23
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
Posts: 55
Threads: 28
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
Posts: 58
Threads: 22
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
Hey ,
sorry for the delay. Brain fingerprinting technology report is available in this thread:
http://seminarsprojects.net/Thread-BRAIN...TECHNOLOGY
and a seminar report is available in this thread:
http://seminarsprojects.net/Thread-Brain...logy--2715
Posts: 48
Threads: 23
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
|
