Brain Fingerprinting Abhi

8/6/2019 Brain Fingerprinting Abhi

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brain-fingerprinting-abhi 1/13

Paper presented on:

RECENT TREND IN IT

BRAIN FINGER PRINTING

SUBMITTED BY

M. [email protected]

N. [email protected]

III - BE ( V-SEM ) students

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Submitted to

COIMBATORE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERINGAND TECHNOLOGY

COIMBATORE



BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

ABSTRACT

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.

Index terms: - forensic science, multifaceted electroencephalographic response

analysis, memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response,

criminal investigation, brain waves.



Contents :

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCIENCE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

3.0 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING DETECTS INFORMATION

4.0 SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE

5.0 SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS

6.0 APPLICATIONS

7.0 RESULTS

8.0 CONCLUSION



1.0 INTRODUCTION :

For ensic science is constantly evolving, f rom the discover y of the uniqueness of

the human fingerprint, to the ability to match a cr iminal to his cr ime through DNA

profiling; technology continues to provide investigator s with new weapons. But

finger pr int and DNA evidence ar e discover ed in the only one per cent of all cases. When

tr usted techniques fail, investigator s must tur n to cutting-edge technology to br ing

invisible clues to light.

Ever y cr iminal 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 tur n the cr iminal's own

memor y against him.

Dr. Lawrence Farwell is the Chairman and Chief Scientist at Br ain

Finger pr inting Labor ator ies in Seattle, Washington. He has develo ped a new

com puter ized system known as Brain Fingerprinting. It r eads the memor y center s of the

human br ain. He believes that Br ain Finger pr inting will one day be used to positively link

per petr ator s to their cr imes.

Br ain Finger pr inting may seem similar to Polygraph (usually called a Lie

Detector), but it differ s in im por tant ways. A polygr aph measur es physiologic r esponses

such as hear t r ate, sweating, br eathing, and other processes that ar e only indir ectly r elated

to br ain function. Br ain Finger pr inting inf ormation comes dir ectly f rom br ain function. It

and other r elated tests do not measur e tr uthfulness but seek to determine whether the

subject has a par ticular memor y.



2.0 SCIENCE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING :

When someone commits a cr ime, his br ain r ecor ds (i.e.) it has a memor y.

Br ain Finger pr inting seeks to r eveal that memor y, by showing the suspect

evidence taken f rom the cr ime scene. A head band with sensor s is placed on the subject.A

ser ies of pictur es or wor ds is flashed on the scr een. The com puter r ecor ds the br ain waves

produced in r esponse to what the subject sees.The r esponses ar e r ecor ded as a wave f orm.

By analyzing the patter n of waves, Far well can determine if the subject is

r ecognizing what he is seeing. So when you have a situation wher e a cr ime has been

committed, and ther e ar e cer tain details only the suspect with know, then we can test:

does this br ain have these details stor ed in it? If so, then the suspect committed the cr ime.

If not, then not.



3.0 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING DETECTS INFORMATION :

Br ain Finger pr inting detects inf ormation stor ed in the human br ain. Sensor s on a

headband, r egister the subject's EEG, or br ain wave r esponses to the com puter images.

The EEG is fed through an am plifier and into a com puter that uses pro pr ietar y softwar e

to display and inter pr et the br ain waves. A specific, electr ical br ain wave r esponse,

known as a P300, is emitted by the br ain within a f r action of a second when an individual

r ecognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or notewor thy. When

an irr elevant stimulus is seen, it is seen as being insignificant and not notewor thy and a

P300 is not emitted.

In his r esear ch on the P300 r esponse, Dr. Farwell discovered that the P300 was

one aspect of a larger brain-wave response that he named a MERMER (memory

and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalo-graphic response). MERMER

com pr ises a P300 r esponse, occurr ing 300 to 800 ms after the stimulus, and additional

patter ns occurr ing mor e than 800 ms after the stimulus, providing even mor e accur ate

r esults.

1

MeraA stimulus that is processed by the br ain (e.g., a wor d or a pictur e flashed on a

com puter scr een) is pr esented many times, and the br ain-wave r esponses to the multiple

pr esentations ar e aver aged. The aver aging process eliminates all activity that is not time-

locked to the stimulus. This process r eveals event-related brain potentials (ERPs) --

specific, sim ple, positive and negative voltage changes that take place dur ing the

inf ormation processing of the par ticular stimulus. The disadvantage of measur ing ERPs is

that the process of signal aver aging eliminates all of the com plicated patter ns associated

with inf ormation processing, leaving only the sim ple voltage changes over time. In other

wor ds, in the process of eliminating noise, a vast amount of meaningful signal is

eliminated as well.



The advances in inf ormation detection and data analysis leading to the

develo pment of MERA and to br ain MERMER testing began with an analysis of the

str engths and weaknesses of ERPs.

Using multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA),

shows that a specific multifaceted electroencephalogr aphic r esponse (MER), known as a

memor y and encoding r elated multifaceted electroencephalogr aphic r esponse

(MERMER), is elicited when a per son r ecognizes and processes a stimulus that is

par ticular ly notewor thy 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.

3.2 Computer Controlled :

Information not present



Information present

The entir e Br ain Finger pr inting system is under com puter control, including

pr esentation of the stimuli, r ecor ding of electr ical br ain activity, a mathematical data

analysis algor

ithm

that com

par es the

r esp

onses t

othe th

r ee types

of sti

muli (Target,

Irrelevant, Probe), and produces a determination of "inf ormation pr esent" or

"inf ormation absent," and a statistical confidence level f or this determination.

4.0 SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE :

Thr ee types of stimuli ar e pr esented: Tar gets, Irr elevant, and Pro bes. The

Targets ar e made r elevant and notewor thy to all subjects, i.e., the subject is given a list

of the Tar get stimuli and instr ucted to pr ess a par ticular button in r esponse to Tar gets and

another button in r esponse to all other stimuli. Since the r elatively r ar e Tar gets ar e

singled out in the task being per f ormed, the Tar gets ar e notewor thy f or the subject, and

each Tar get stimulus elicits a MERMER. Most of the non-Tar get stimuli ar e irr elevant,

having no r elation to the situation under investigation. This Irrelevant do not elicit a

MERMER.

Some of the non-Tar get stimuli ar e r elevant to the situation under investigation.

These r elevant stimuli ar e r eferr ed to as Probes. For a subject who has par ticipated in

the situation in question, the Pro bes ar e notewor thy due to the subject's knowledge of that

situation, and, ther ef or e, Pro bes elicit a MERMER when the subject is knowledgeable.

Pro bes ar e indistinguishable f rom the Irr elevant f or a subject who is not knowledgeable



about the situation under investigation, and thus Pro bes do not elicit a MERMER if the

subject is not knowledgeable.

Br ain r esponses wer e r ecor ded f rom the midline f rontal, centr al, and par ietal scalp

locations, (Fz, Cz, and Pz r espectively) r efer enced to linked mastoids (behind the ear ),

and f rom a location on the f or ehead to tr ack eye movements. Scalp r ecor ding was done

with disposable EEG electrodes, similar to those used in standar d EEG r ecor ding. The

electrodes wer e em bedded in a special headband designed and constr ucted by Dr .

Far well's Human Br ain Resear ch Labor ator y.

5.0 SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS :

5.1 Harrington¶s Case :

In Apr il 2000, Dr . Lawr ence Far well conducted a Br ain Finger pr inting test on

Harr ington. Br ain r esponses showed conclusively that the r ecor d stor ed in Harr ington¶s

br ain did not match the cr ime scene and did match his alibi, accor ding to Dr . Far well.

The Br ain Finger pr inting test r esults wer e the fir st new evidence suppor ting Harr ington¶s

claim of innocence in over 20 year s.

5.2 Dr. Richardson¶s Comment :

Drew Richardson, PhD a senior agent of the FBI and a scientist in the FBI

Laboratories f or 26 year s says "I was assigned to collabor ate with Dr . Far well in the

r esear ch, design and labor ator y testing of a r esear ch study on Br ain Finger pr inting

technology. In our study, indeed in all the studies to date, Br ain Finger pr inting testing has

proved to be 100% accur ate, wher ever a determination can be made. I estimate that up to

70% of major cr imes would someday be appro pr iate f or applying Br ain Finger pr inting

technology.





Figur es 1 and 2 pr esent the aver age br ain r esponses to Pro be, Tar get, and

Irr elevant stimuli f or two of the subjects. Figur e 1 pr esents data f or a subject who is

knowledgeable r egar ding the investigated event. Figur e 2 pr esents data f or a subject who

is not knowledgeable r egar ding the investigated event.

These figur es pr esent plots of voltage over time at the par ietal (Pz) scalp location.

In these figur es, the MERMER appear s as a positive voltage peak at approximately 500

msec f ollowed by a negative voltage deflection maximal at approximately 1200 - 1500

msec. (The latency of these deflections var ies accor ding to the speed of the individual

subjects' br ain processing.)

The br ain r esponses of two subjects whose data ar e pr esented her e ar e typical of

their r espective groups, knowledgeable and not knowledgeable. As can be clear ly seen in

the figur es, f or the knowledgeable subjects (Figur e 1) the MERMER is elicited in

r esponse to both Tar gets and Pro bes. For the subjects who wer e not knowledgeable

(Figur e 2), the MERMER is elicited only in r esponse to Tar gets.

(Figure1) Information Present Brain Response (Figure 2) Information Absent Brain Response



8.0 CONCLUSION :

The 100-percent accuracy and high confidence level of the results, however ,

provide fur ther suppor t f or r esults f rom pr evious r esear ch using br ain MERMER testing.

Today¶s so phisticated cr ime scene analysis techniques can sometimes place the

per petr ator at the scene of the cr ime; however , physical evidence is not always pr esent.

Knowledge of numerous details of the cr ime, such as the mur der weapon, the specific

position of the body, the amount of money stolen -- any inf ormation not available to the

public -- may r eveal that a par ticular individual is associated with the cr ime.

Additionally, if r esear ch determines that br ain MERMER testing is r eliable

enough that it could be introduced as evidence in cour t; it may be the cr iminal

investigative tool of the futur e.



9.0 REFERENCES :

[1] Far well LA, Donchin E. The br ain detector : P300 in the detection of deception.

Psycho physiology 1986; 24:434

[2] Far well LA, inventor . Method and appar atus f or multifaceted

electroencephalogr aphic r esponse analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994 Nov

15

[3] Far well LA, inventor . Method and appar atus f or tr uth detection. US patent

5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18

[4] Far well LA, inventor . Method f or electroencephalogr aphic inf ormation detection.

US patent 5,467,777. 1995 Nov 21.

[5] Bashor e T, Rapp P. Ar e ther e alter natives to tr aditional polygr aph procedur es?

Psychological Bulletin 1993; 113:3-22.

Brain Fingerprinting Abhi

Documents