Technical Seminar Documentation.docx

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Brain fingerprinting is a scientific technique for detecting concealed information stored in the brain by measuring brainwaves. The author, forensic neuroscientist Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D. Invented brain fingerprinting in the early 1980s (Farwell and Dunchin, 1986, 1991), and later patented it. The author has conducted research and applications of brain fingerprinting at the CIA, the FBI, the US Navy, and elsewhere. He has successfully used brain fingerprinting in the real world in investigating major crimes. Brain fingerprinting, and the author ‘s expert testimony on it, have been ruled admissible in court. This article will focus on the major misinformation contained in the Rosenfeld (2005) article and Rosenfeld ‘s related false claims and false statements in other forums. Correcting all of the misinformation in the Rosenfeld article, or responding to his many unsupported subjective opinions, would require an excessively long article. We shall focus on Rosenfeld ‘s most salient misstatements of fact. Unlike the Rosenfeld article, this article will not make unsupported subjective judgments, express unsupported opinions, or ascribe motives or thoughts to anyone. The focus of this article will be to state the independently verifiable facts, provide the necessary references to verify them, and allow the reader to reach his or her own judgments and conclusions. 1.1 OVERVIEW: Brain fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information related to an event or activity by measuring electric brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures on a computer screen. Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors. The person to be tested wears a headband with electronic sensors that measure the electroencephalography from several locations. Brain fingerprinting was so named because like fingerprinting it detects a match between evidence from the crime scene and evidence on the person of the suspect. Rosenfeld conducted laboratory research similar to the brain fingerprinting methods invented and published by Farwell, but failed to follow many of the brain fingerprinting scientific standards that Farwell established and upheld in his research. Rosenfeld published results demonstrating that his own alternative techniques have inconsistent accuracy rates, in some cases no better than chance, and overall are far less than the accuracy of brain fingerprinting. Rosenfeld falsely stated to the news media that the proven inaccuracy of his own alternative techniques showed that Farwell‘s brain fingerprinting technique was also inaccurate. After publishing his statements and later checking the facts, the news outlets recognized that Rosenfeld‘s statements were false and published corrections.

1

After publishing his statements and later checking the facts, the news outlets recognized that Rosenfeld ‘s statements were false and published corrections. Rosenfeld later repeated the same and similar false statements about Farwell and brain fingerprinting in SRMHP.

1.2: TECHNIQUE: In the same article in SMRHP, Rosenfeld falsely attributed to Farwell statements that were in fact made by news reporters and clearly so attributed, and then falsely criticized Farwell for making statements he did not make. Rosenfeld used the credibility given by publication in SRMHP to his false statements about Farwell and brain fingerprinting as support for subsequent repetitions of the same false statements in other publications and in the news media. Rosenfeld made false qualitative claims about the purported value of his techniques in real-world situations. His claims are entirely unsupported by any scientific research or real-world experience. He claimed that his technique could be effectively applied to a terrorist suspect in custody, ‖ whereas in fact no research has been completed on applying his technique in any real-life or field application of any kind, and the accuracy of his technique even in the laboratory has in some studies been no better than chance. Rosenfeld made specific false quantitative claims about the accuracy his techniques would achieve when applied in the real world, claims that are directly contradicted by the evidence from his own laboratory.

Figure: 1.1

2

Chapter 2 EXISTING SYSTEM

2.1 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 timeto a subject, the familiar, previously learned words but not the others elicited a P300. Assuggested above, Rosenfeld, Nasman, Whalen, Cantwell, Mazzeri (1987) recognized that theFabiani et a. (1983) study suggested that P300 could be used to detect concealed guiltyknowledge, 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 afamiliar 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 inno way affects the claims of the BF approach. Farwell and Smith (2001). However, seem tohave over-extended this distinction: “Brain MERMER testing has almost nothing in commonwith ‘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 thesuspect. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during the procedure, and in fact the resultsof MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth at anytime.” This assertion is misleading: In fact the subject does give behavioral button pressresponses. One button means “No, I don’t recognize this stimulus.” If the guilty subjectpresses this no button to a guilty knowledge item, he is lying with his button press, if not hisvoice. Lying is the clear inference if there is no other innocuous explanation for the brainresponse, 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 subtitleof Farwell and Donchin (1991), Farwell’s only peer-reviewed paper on P300-based deceptiondetection in a psychology, neuroscience or psychophysiology journal. Finally, when Farwelland Smith (2001; not a journal in psychology, psychophysiology, or neuroscience) stated, “infact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells thetruth,” 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 studiesin which the opposite is shown, and it is discussed why truthful subjects in fact produce muchlarger 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),

3

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, theitems 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 torespond by saying “yes” so as to assure us they were paying attention to the screen at alltimes, 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. Thespecial target items also evoked P300, as one might expect, since they too were rare andmeaningful (task-relevant). (The 1988 study was actually the second of two closely relatedpublications, the first having been published as Rosenfeld . et al., 1987.) This paradigm hadmany 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 indicesof recognition. This required various other departures from the classic GKT method, such assignal averaging and target stimuli. Farwell and Donchin (1991) reported that in the 20 guiltycases, 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 theircrimes, a procedure having limited ecological validity in field circumstances in whichtraining of a suspect on details of a crime he/she was denying would not be possible. In theinnocent 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 volunteeringsubjects were all previously admitted wrongdoers on the college campus. Their crime detailswere well-detected with P300, but these previously admitted wrongdoers no doubt had hadmuch 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 versuspreviously 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 correctdecision was possible in only three of four (75%) innocent cases.

2.2 THE ACCURACY ISSUE: Regarding P300-based GKT studies from independent laboratories, how does the BFmethod fare? Our lab has typically reported 80-95% detection (see Rosenfeld, Soskins, Bosh,& Ryan, 2004; Rosenfeld, 2002). Our higher detection rates tend to accompany detection of autobiographical knowledge in head injury malingering studies. Our lower rates tend toaccompany detection of incidental knowledge as in Rosenfeld et al., (2004).

4

Apart from these lab analogues, there has been only oneindependent field study of P300based detection of guilty knowledge, that by Miyake,Y.,Mizutanti, M., and Yamahura, T. (1993). This study, under the auspices of a Japanese policedepartment, reported only 48% detection of guilty subjects. One can surmise what Farwell’sresponses to these challenging data would be, based on the fact that he was actuallyconfronted with the Miyake et al. (1993) report at the Harrington 2000 hearing. He stated thatthese findings were not relevant since Miyake et al. recorded from Cz rather than Pz: “Theyrecorded from Cz, so I don’t know what they were measuring it appears they were doingsomething that was in no way related to what we did.” This statement seems erroneous andmisleading in that Miyake et al. were indeed conducting related research as they actuallycited Farwell and Donchin, (1991) as the basis of their effort. Moreover, had there been aP300 expert present, he/she could have retorted that P300s from Cz and Pz usually correlateat >.95 over trials, and that indeed, no less a P300 expert than Polich (1999) recommendedthe use of Cz in diagnostic clinical P300 studies. Farwell might also respond more technicallythat the EEG filters used by other investigators are not the Optimal Digital Filters he used inFarwell and Donchin (1991), and claimed to be superior to the filters most others use(Farwell, Martineri, Bashore, Rapp, & Goddard, 1993.) The filters discussed here are circuitelements or software models of circuit elements through which raw EEG signals are passed.Their purpose is to remove artifactual and other sources of noise in the brain wave signal.The present author, not an electrical engineer, had always sensed a problem with the Farwellet al. (1993) paper. In preparing the present review, I consulted two P300 experts (one anengineer), plus one of Farwell’s co-authors on the 1993 paper about this serious problem.

2.3: LITERATURE SURVEY: A controversial claim: Something fundamentally new ishappening. Until now, ALL information that we got from human beings we got from theirperipheral nervous system. For the first time in human history, we are developing the abilityto bypass the peripheral nervous system and get information directly from the brain. Bypassing the Peripheral Nervous System: • Phelps: Amygdala activation and racism • Greene: Emotional activation & moral decision-making • Canli: Extroverts amygdala activation to smiling faces • Price, Zeffiro: Can he read English or Arabic? • Kamitani & Tong, Haynes and Rees: visual patterns • Schaefer et al: Violent offenders & brain structure.

5

2.4: DISADVANTAGES:       

Equipment failures. Need for backup plans. Anxiety for professors. Time spent learning new technologies all the time. Resources are not always available. Constant Obsolescence of devices. Experts are required to collect evidences crime scene.

2.5:DISADVANTAGES WHILE USING THE TECHNIQUE: Rosenfeld made specific false claims regarding the accuracy of his technique. In addition to his false claims regarding applicability in the real world, Rosenfeld claimed a much higher accuracy rate in the field than his technique has achieved even in highly controlled and artificial laboratory conditions. As noted above, Rosenfeld stated: ―If you had a suspected terrorist in custody and you had some idea what he was planning to do next, you could give him this test,‖ says Rosenfeld. ―In general, about one out of 20 subjects will beat the test using countermeasures. But chances are we‘re going to catch them anyway because their reaction times will give them away. Rosenfeld made a specific numerical claim about the projected accuracy of his technique in the field (where it has never been used), a claim that would not have been true even if he had been referring only to his laboratory tests. In the above cited quotation, Rosenfeld claims his technique would achieve 95% accuracy in detecting terrorists when they practice countermeasures, and mentions no possibility of any errors at all except those brought about by countermeasures. He claims 5% false negatives with countermeasures and strongly implies 0% false negatives without countermeasures. He also says that even for the 5% of subjects who beat the system with countermeasures, ―chances are we‘re going to catch them anyway‖ with reaction time measurements. This clearly is a claim that his technique can be expected to achieve a false negative rate even lower than 5% when reaction times as well as brainwaves are considered. This amounts to a claim of over 95% accuracy with countermeasures and a strong implication of 100% accuracy without countermeasures in detecting concealed information. (His claim does not address detecting innocent‖ subjects who do not know the relevant information, or falsepositive errors in failing to detect such subjects.)

6

Rosenfeld et al., 2009; Rosenfeld & Labkovsky, in press; Winograd & Rosenfeld, in press) for subjects who have the relevant knowledge have ranged from 53% (8 of 15 subjects) (Meixner et al.) to 100% (12 of 12 subjects) (Meixner & Rosenfeld, in press) and averaged approximately 87% without countermeasures. With countermeasures, accuracy has ranged from 36% (Meixner et al.) to 100% (Meixner & Rosenfeld, in press) and averaged approximately 71%. In some cases the inclusion reaction-time analysis has resulted in detection of subjects otherwise undetected. For example, using their preferred analysis method Rosenfeld et al. (2008) detected 63% of countermeasure subjects with brainwaves and 87% by including reaction times. His own published data show that Rosenfeld‘s claim of over 95% accuracy with countermeasures and strong implication of 100% accuracy without countermeasures is false. His claim would have been false even if it had been only about laboratory studies and not application to a terrorist in custody in the real world. Nor is there any evidence in any of his publications or anywhere else that even the moderate accuracy rates obtained (albeit inconsistently) in Rosenfeld‘s highly contrived laboratory conditions would be obtained if his procedures were attempted on a suspected terrorist in custody or in any real application.

Rosenfeld‘s false claims of accuracy were not restricted to florid statements to reporters, however. His false claims extended to the realm of scientific journals as well. In an article in Psychophysiology, Rosenfeld et al. (2008) cited Rosenfeld‘s (2005) SRMHP article, and the false information contained therein, in support of a false claim that his technique is ―more accurate than previously published methods for detecting concealed information (p. 917). (Brain fingerprinting is obviously a previously published method.) It is false on the face of it to claim that Rosenfeld‘s technique, which has had up to nearly 50% false negatives in some studies and averaged about 13% false negatives, is more accurate than brain fingerprinting, which has never had a false negative (or a false positive). This is discussed in detail below in the context of more detailed discussions of accuracy rates, statistics, publications, and countermeasures.

Figure: 2.1

7

Chapter 3 PROPOSED SYSTEM

Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electrical activity produced by the brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp. Just as the activity in a computer can be understood on multiple levels, from the activity of individual transistors 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 action potentials in a single axon or currents within a single dendrite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the activity measured by the EEG which aggregates the electric voltage fields from millions of neurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens to hundreds 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 research purposes.

Figure: 3.1

8

3.1 SOURCE OF EEG ACTIVITY: Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies having different characteristic spatial distributions associated with different states of brain functioning such as waking and sleeping. These oscillations represent synchronized activity over a network of neurons. The neuronal networks underlying some of these oscillations are understood (such as the thalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) while many others are not (e.g. the system that generates the posterior basic rhythm). 3.2 EEG VS FMRI AND PET: EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity; for example, its time resolution is very high. Other methods of looking at brain activity, such as PET and FMRI have time resolution between seconds and minutes. EEG measures the brain's electrical activity directly, while other methods record changes in blood flow (e.g., SPECT, FMRI) or metabolic activity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers of brain electrical activity. EEG can be used simultaneously with FMRI so that high-temporalresolution data can be recorded at the same time as high-spatialresolution data, however, since the data derived from each occurs over a different time course, the data sets do not necessarily represent the exact same brain activity. There are technical difficulties associated with combining these two modalities like currents can be induced in moving EEG electrode wires due to the magnetic field of the MRI. EEG can be recorded at the same time as MEG so that data from these complimentary high-time-resolution techniques can be combined. Magneto-encephalography (MEG) is an imaging technique used to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain via extremely sensitive devices such as superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs). These measurements are commonly used in both research and clinical settings. There are many uses for the MEG, including assisting surgeons in localizing pathology, assisting researchers in determining the function of various parts of the brain, neuro-feedback, and others. METHOD: Scalp EEG, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on the scalp. Each electrode is connected to one input of a differential amplifier and a Brain Fingerprinting Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 9 common system reference electrode is connected to the other input of each differential amplifier. These amplifiers amplify the voltage between the active electrode and the reference (typically 1,000–100,000 times, or 60–100 dB of voltage gain). A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when measured from the scalp [2] and is about 10–20 mV when measured from subdural electrodes. In digital EEG systems, the amplified signal is digitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after being passed through an anti-aliasing filter. Since an EEG voltage signal represents a difference between the voltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for the reading encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.

9

Figure: 3.2

Figure: 3.3

10

Chapter 4 COMPARISON

4.1 COMPARISION OF OTHER TECHNOLOGIES: Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. The brain and the evidence recorded in it are always are there. No questions are asked and no answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. This technology depends only on the brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject. It would be inappropriate to generalize the results of the present research because of the small sample of subjects. But the 100% accuracy and high confidence level of the results, however, provide further support for the results from previous research using the MERMER testing. Both the analysis using the P300-MERMER and the analysis using the P300 alone produced error rates of 0 %, accuracy rates of 100 %. There were no false negatives and no false positives. There were also no indeterminates. The median statistical confidence for P300-based determinations was 99.6 %, as compared to 99.9 % for the P300-MERMER. The mean statistical confidence for P300-based determinations was 97.9 %, as compared to 99.5 % for the P300-MERMER. The statistical confidences for the P300-MERMER-based analysis were significantly higher than those for the P300-based analysis (p < .0001, sign test), for the combined data for all studies. P300-MERMER analysis also produced significantly higher statistical confidences (p < .0001) in each of the four studies taken separately. All P300-based determinations were above the pre-established criteria of 90 % for informationpresent determinations and 70 % for information-absent determinations. All P300-based determinations were in fact above 90 % statistical confidence for both information-present and information-absent subjects. For information-absent subjects, this means that all determinations were at least 20 percentage points above the criterion. Some of the information-present determinations, however, were close to the 90 % criterion.

11

All determinations, however, were far from either a false positive or a false negative, even when using only the P300. With the P300-based analysis, all information-present and informationabsent subjects’ data were correctly grouped in the correct 10 % range at one end or the other of the distribution, as compared with the 5 % range for the P300-MERMER-based analysis. Thus, for the P300-based analysis, the spread between the least statistically confident informationpresent subject’s determination and the least statistically confident information-absent subject’s determination was over 80 percentage points. Statistically, all subjects were extremely far from being misclassified in either a false-negative or false-positive category with both the P300-based analysis and the P300-MERMER-based analysis. In 43 of 76 subjects (57 %), the statistical confidence for the P300-MERMER-based determination was higher than the statistical confidence for the P300-based determination. In these 43 subjects, the P300-MERMER produced a mean increment in statistical confidence of 2.7 % over the P300. For all subjects combined, including those where the statistical confidences were equal for P300-MERMER and P300, the mean increment produced by the P300-MERMER over the P300 was 1.5 %. The advantage of the P300MERMER over the P300 may have been limited by a ceiling effect. The statistical confidence for both P300-MERMER-based and P300-based analyses was 99.9 % for 28 of 76 subjects (37 %). Considering only the subjects whose P300-based analysis yielded less than the maximum possible 99.9 % confidence, in 43 of 48 cases (90 %), the P300-MERMER-based analysis yielded a higher statistical confidence than the P300-based analysis. The four brain fingerprinting studies used two types of brain fingerprinting tests to detect two different types of real-life information. The CIA Real Life Study and the Real Crime Real Consequences $100,000 Reward Study were specific issue tests. They detected specific issue knowledge, that is, knowledge regarding specific crimes (or, in some cases in the CIA study, other real-life events). The FBI Agent Study and the Bomb Maker Study were specific screening tests. They detected specific group knowledge, that is, knowledge known to people with particular training, expertise, or familiarity with the inner workings of a particular group or organization.

12

4.2 P300 MERMER based and P300 based results: These two types of tests address two fundamental needs in law enforcement, criminal justice, counterterrorism, and national security. One is to determine objectively whether or not a specific suspect has information stored in his brain that is known only to participants in a particular crime and to investigators. The other is to determine objectively whether or not a particular suspect has knowledge that is unique to individuals with particular training or expertise, such as IED making, or to members of a particular organization or group, such as Al-Qaeda-trained terrorists or members of a terrorist cell or a foreign intelligence agency. Brain fingerprinting proved highly accurate in detecting both types of real-world information stored in the brains of subjects. It also proved highly accurate in detecting the absence of such information in the brains of subjects who did not possess the relevant information. In view of our results, we suggest that a higher criterion for both information-present and information-absent determinations is in order for future field applications of these methods. A criterion of 95 % statistical confidence for an information-present determination, and 95 % confidence in the opposite direction for an information-absent determination, would in our view be appropriate. Our results suggest that following these specific methods and meeting these specific scientific standards provides sufficient conditions for viable field use of brain fingerprinting technology in detecting concealed information in real-world situations where the outcome of the test may result in substantial consequences. In our view, it would be a serious error, and in some cases a serious violation of rights, to fail to apply or at least to make available for voluntary use this technology to determine the truth in cases where not knowing the truth can have serious consequences. Detecting or failing to detect the truth regarding what information certain individuals possess or do not possess is often critical to solving a crime or addressing a threat to national or global security. In our view, brain fingerprinting, when practiced and interpreted according to the scientific standards outlined herein, can be a valid, accurate, and reliable means to discover such truth.

13

4.3 Future implications of the difference in P300-MERMER and P300 results: In all four studies, the analysis using the P300-MERMER produced significantly higher statistical confidences than the analysis using the P300 alone. Error rates were the same for both analysis methods. The identical error rates may have been due to a ceiling effect, given that error rates were 0 % (100 % accuracy) for both the P300-MERMER and the P300, and both techniques produced results that were extremely far from an error in every case. No technique is 100 % accurate forever, however. In the future the higher statistical confidences provided by the P300MERMER will be likely to result in a lower error rate as well, when and if eventually the technique produces errors. Also, the P300-MERMER analysis yielded results that were quite far from an indeterminate, whereas the P300 yielded results for a few subjects that were close to an indeterminate outcome. It is likely that in the future the P300 will produce more indeterminates than the P300-MERMER, even when neither technique produces an error or even anything close to an error. Research in other laboratories suggests that at least the most essential of these standards are necessary for valid, accurate, and reliable results. Several studies that used different methods reported error rates an order of magnitude higher than those of the present study and previous similar ones, as well as much lower statistical confidences (no better than chance for informationabsent subjects). (For a review see Farwell 2012). For example, Rosenfeld et al. (2004) reported overall 35 % error rate without countermeasures and 67 % error rate with countermeasures. Rosenfeld et al. (2008) and subsequent studies on the “complex trial protocol” reported an overall error rate of 15 % without countermeasures and 29 % with countermeasures. In all of these studies, statistical confidences (when reported) for information-present subjects were over 90 %, and statistical confidences for information-absent subjects averaged approximately 50 % (chance).

14

Indeterminate to 42 % error rate with 0 % indeterminate. Different methods produce different results. The standard brain fingerprinting methods applied in the current studies have produced the kind of results reported herein, and similar results in independent replications elsewhere (e.g. Allen and Iacono 1997). Different methods have produced dramatically different results more than an order of magnitude higher error rates, dramatically lower statistical confidences (some methods averaging no better than chance for information-absent subjects), and susceptibility to countermeasures. We suggest that the differences in methods responsible for these differences in results have included the features discussed below. These are discussed in more detail, with specific reference to all related publications to date in English, in Farwell (2012). Three other experimental methodologies will be discussed in order to address the significance of the MERMER in investigative roles: In research conducted by Dr. Farwell in collaboration with Dr. Drew Richardson, then a scientist at the FBI Laboratory, Brain Fingerprinting had 100% accurate scientific results in using the MERMER to distinguish 17 FBI agents from 4 non-FBI agents out of a group of 21 subjects. [1] In one experiment, the information detected was specific knowledge that would identify an individual as an FBI agent. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether this method could be useful in detecting members of a group or organization of people with a particular knowledge (e.g., members of a foreign intelligence organization or a terrorist organization). Stimuli were words, phrases, and acronyms flashed on a computer screen that would be common knowledge only to someone within federal law enforcement. A second experiment, conducted at the FBI by Dr. Farwell in collaboration with SSA Sharon Smith of the FBI Laboratory, correctly detected whether or not individuals had participated in specific, real-life events. This research has been published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. The second study was commissioned by the CIA and consisted of three experiments that examined the interchangeability of indicators. The first consisted of pictorial stimuli with probes and targets directly related to a simulated espionage enacted by some of the subjects. Another experiment was conducted by Dr. Farwell at the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene Hernandez, PhD. This experiment was collaboration between the intelligence agency and the Navy. In this experiment words, phrases, and acronyms were presented on a computer screen, and the information detected through brain responses was relevant to knowledge of military medicine.

15

A third example used verbal stimuli to identify subjects with knowledge of actual crimes. All 79 subjects in these three trials were identified correctly as “information present” or “information absent”. As with the other experiments, Brain Fingerprinting was 100% accurate. The weight of the evidence in this body of experimentation would imply that systematic replications have been performed and have been found consistent with the conclusion that brain fingerprinting is scientifically valid. Visual and pictorial stimuli were both shown to be relevant methods of presentation. Live situation engagement, mock acting, and academic knowledge are all considered to be proven valid test criteria.

4.4 Statistical methodologies: In most event-related brain potential studies, the data from many subjects are analyzed to draw conclusions about the processes taking place in the brain during a certain task. Since data are combined across subjects, and the results for any individual subject do not need to be statistically significant, relatively small number of responses can be collected for each subject. In Brain Fingerprinting testing and other brainwave-based techniques for detecting concealed information in the brain, it is important do draw highly accurate conclusions, with a high statistical confidence, for each individual subject. For example, when Dr. Farwell used Brain Fingerprinting technology to detect and record the murder of Julie Helton in the brain of JB Grinder, it would not have been useful to test 20 suspected serial killers and conclude that, as a group, these 20 had significantly more information about the crime than some other group. It was only necessary to determine, with high statistical confidence, one of two conclusions: a) JB Grinder’s brain contained a record of the salient details of the murder of Julie Helton, or b) JB Grinder’s brain did not contain a record of the significant details of the murder of Julie Helton. Brain Fingerprinting testing led to the former conclusion, with a 99.9% confidence. Grinder pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison By using a bootstrap algorithm Resampling (statistics), measurements from each individual subject can be averaged and compared in a way that is statistically meaningful. The bootstrapping algorithm provides for a determination of “information present” or “information absent” for each individual subject, and a statistical confidence for each individual determination for a single subject. The irrelavents and targets from the same subject provide control standards by which the unknown variables (the probes) may be compared. Such within-subject comparisons provide the 16

only meaningful and practically useful statistics with regard to “information present” or “information absent” determinations.

Table: 4.1

17

P300 VERSES MERMER

Table: 4.2

18

Chapter 5 APPLICATIONS 5.1: Counter terrorism: Brain fingerprinting can help address the following critical elements in the fight against terrorism:A: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. B: 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. C: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts. D: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization. 5.2: Criminal justice: 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 the perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and the innocent suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference. 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, scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. 5.3: Medical: “Brain Fingerprinting” is the patented technology that can measure objectively, for the first time, how memory and cognitive functioning of Alzheimer sufferers are affected by medications.

19

First generation tests have proven to be more accurate than other routinely used tests, and could be commercially available in 18-24 months.

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

5.4: Advertising: Not actually a reality but in the future for sure, brain fingerprinting can be used to examine the “pulse of people” by getting the information in brains of people to the effects that advertisements being used for publicity create. Though it’s a long shot it will be a reality in the near future. According to the above point, as the technology is costly, not all the patients or innocent people can use this technology to save themselves. The chances of availability of the equipment’s is very low. This technique is not 100% true in every case as it only detects information in the brain of a person. It may be that an innocent person maybe knowing about the crime as a third person or listener or maybe that he may be present at the crime scene. So this may give an opportunity to the criminal to create a scene of doubt as the technology doesn’t actually specify the roles of the people showing electrical brainwave responses. Brain fingerprinting cannot be applied to every case or to every suspect because there may be cases in which the investigators may not be knowing anything about the crime scene while the criminal disappears from the hearing. So, no conclusion could be deciphered. There can be cases when the criminal may claim that he was present at the crime scene but only as an eye witness. So, in this case the person knows everything about the crime scene but did not commit the crime. Therefore, no information can be deciphered.

20

Figure: 5.1

INFORMATION COLLECTION: Gathering evidences from crime scenes. BRAIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION: A specialist checks whether the crime scene evidence matches evidence stored in brain. COMPUTER EVIDENCE ANALYSIS: Computerized analysis is done on the brain evidences and statistical methods are applied to move to the next phase. SCIENTIFIC RESULT: Finding whether the person is guilty or not guilty.

21

Chapter 6 FUTURE SCOPE 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 investigators fulfill an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects. 6.1: Four phases of Farwell brain fingerprinting: In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence is recognized and collected at the crime scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place 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 the suspect (that is, in the brain as revealed by electrical brain responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to Farwell brain fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting: 1. Brain fingerprinting crime scene evidence collection. 2. Brain fingerprinting brain evidence collection. 3. Brain fingerprinting computer evidence analysis. 4. Brain fingerprinting scientific result. In the crime scene evidence collection, an expert in Farwell brain fingerprinting examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify detail of the crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. The expert then conducts the brain evidence collection in order

22

to determine whether or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of suspect.

In the computer evidence analysis, the Farwell brain fingerprinting system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. This determination and statistical confidence constitute the scientific result of Farwell brain fingerprinting: either "information present" –the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" the details of the crime are not stored in the of the suspect. 6.2:Record of 100% of accuracy: At the time of this first field application, Dr. Farwell's successes in the scientific laboratory with his invention were already well known. In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, Dr. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using Farwell Brain Fingerprinting to identify FBI agents based on their brain responses to words and 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., also resulted in 100% accurate results. In research on contract with a US government intelligence agency, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting achieved 100% accuracy in proving the presence or absence of a wide variety of evidence stored in the brains of individuals involved in over 120 cases. Dr. Farwell has published extensively in the scientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technical audiences throughout the world. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected to rigorous peer review under US government sponsorship, and has been found scientifically viable as well as revolutionary in its implications. Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific echnology 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. Brain Fingerprinting technology is a advanced brain computer interface technology for solving the criminals case and also identify the perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects. This technology provide the 99.9% accurate result towards crime victims, falsely accused innocent 23

suspects. The technology investigators fulfill an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects.

DNA was discovered as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and his associates in 1944 but it took 44 years for it to become admissible as evidence in the courts. Would the brain fingerprinting technology become admissible in our courts or would it be junked as a junk science? Only time will be able to answer this question. It took years of struggle to get DNA evidence admitted as expert evidence in the courts worldwide, a similar tortuous route appears to await, the admission of brain fingerprinting results as evidence. But I am not so much concerned with its admissibility in courts, what I am concerned with and championing for, is it’s utility as an adjunct, in the police investigation to expedite the investigative process in a few complicated cases. In 2001, brain fingerprinting was ruled as admissible in the USA, in Harrington vs the State of Iowa case. This case remains the only US case in which Dr Farwell’s forensics brain wave analysis (FBA)technology has been admitted formally as evidence and considered. India was the first country to convict an accused relying on evidence provided by brain fingerprinting device and the second country after the United States to introduce brain fingerprinting for detection of crimes. Experts in psychology and neuroscience were uniformly troubled that a criminal conviction was granted even before the method could be validated by an independent body. In 2010 the Indian Supreme Court struck it down and declared evidence from a brain scanner as not admissible. In Selvi & Others vs the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that the application of the BEOS system violated a number of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution, in particular, the right against self-incrimination, and could only be used with the suspect’s or defendant’s express, informed consent. This decision also became applicable to the use of polygraphs and narco-analysis in the Indian criminal justice system. It, therefore, appears that there are a number of significant scientific and legal hurdles that will have to be overcome for the BEOS system to become accepted as a forensic procedure in the Indian legal criminal justice system.

24

But all hope is not lost. A ray of light has emerged from pilot studies on forensic brain wave analysis (FBA) conducted by New Zealand Law Foundation from March 2016 to 2017 which had the primary objective of investigating, at a prima facie level, the reliability of Dr Lawrence Farwell’s forensic brainwave analysis technology, and the legal implications of the potential application of this technology in New Zealand. At the end of the pilot phase, the FBA Project Team was satisfied that the science on which forensic brainwave analysis (FBA) technology is based provided sufficient confidence for further experiments and testing. That day, therefore, does not appear far off, when forensic brain wave analysis would receive the same validation that DNA technology has been able to achieve until now. In November 2015, the Raksha Shakthi University (RSU ) Ahmedabad become the first institute in India to acquire the brain fingerprinting technology in collaboration with US firm called Brainwave Science. In 2016, CBI approached RSU, Ahmedabad to solve a case of rape in the toilet of a running train where a teacher was reportedly raped by a suspect named Amar in Mumbai. Kerala high court in another case ordered brain fingerprinting test to solve the case of the disappearance of a woman in Dubai. In the former, the complicity of Amar in the rape was confirmed during brainwave analysis, while in the latter the suspect committed suicide before the test could be administered. A number of high profile suspects and criminals, from extradited gangster Abu Salem to stamp scamster Abdul Karim Telgi we’re also administered the tests in Bangalore. This non-verbal interrogation method was also applied to the three suspects of the Bihar midday meal poisoning case, in which several children had died This technique could prove valuable in solving the complicated cases being reported today and in future. Indian police recently arrested left-wing activists for suspected links to banned Maoist rebels, across five states in connection with an alleged plot by the Maoist extremists to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi. If true, forensic brainwave analysis would help us search out the information concerning the plot from the nooks of their brains. On July 26, this year, the parliament passed the new anti-trafficking bill. Pavan Khurana , Rajan Yadav, Sundari and Shahbin of Nepal, who were arrested on 30th July 2018 by the Varanasi Crime Branch are reported to have trafficked thousands of girls to Middle East countries. network in its entirety. Similarly, 25

the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the first week of August this year arrested Habibur Rahman, an alleged handler of hardened Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Shaikh Naeem after he was deported from Saudi Arabia. He is believed to have provided shelter, hideouts and funds for terrorists like Naeem on different occasions for carrying out terrorist activities in India on the directions of the LeT commander Amjad Rehan who is based out of Pakistan. Studying his brain waves would help determine if his brain contains specific knowledge of terrorist attacks carried out earlier, besides details of the other members of the organisation, and bomb-making knowledge as well as the internal workings of his terrorist organisation. Such information could prove valuable in helping the police reverse engineer a complete terrorist network, pigeonhole their funding techniques as well as the connections. Brain fingerprinting has certain limitations. If the investigators have no idea of what took place in the perpetration of a crime, for instance, if a person simply disappears and foul play is suspected, it will not be possible to develop any probe stimulus. Under the circumstances, no brain fingerprinting test can be conducted. Secondly, if the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime then the test will not produce incriminating results. One example being that if the suspect acknowledges the fact of having been present at the scene of the crime as an eye-witness and but not as a perpetrator, in such cases probes cannot be developed and a brain wave test cannot be structured. Thirdly, in an alleged sexual assault or rape, if the victim and the suspect agree on the details of the place and events but disagree on the intent of the parties, then the test will be inconclusive as brain fingerprinting detects only information and not the intent. In spite of some shortcomings, forensic brainwave analysis technology appears to have the ability to make a significant contribution to the administration of justice, in both civil and criminal settings. However, the fundamental and applied authenticity of FBA technology will first have to be unequivocally established, with all relevant legal rights, and protections put in place.

26

Figure: 6.1

Figure: 6.2

27

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary newtechnology for solving crimes, with a record of 100% accuracy. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies,corporations, and individuals in a trillion-dollar worldwide market. The technology is fullydeveloped and available for application in the field. 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 fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects. • It would be inappropriate to generalize the results of the present research because of the small sample of subjects. • But the 100% accuracy and high confidence level of the results, however, provide further support for results from previous research using brain MERMER testing.

28

REFERENCES

[1] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/ [2] International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering (An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization) Vol.2, Special Issue 1, March 2014 Proceedings of International Conference On Global Innovations In Computing Technology (ICGICT’14) Organized by Department of CSE, JayShriram Group of Institutions, Tirupur, Tamilnadu, India on 6th & 7th March 2014 [3] www.slideshare.net/PriyodarshiniDhar/ brain-fingerprinting-30123748. [4] www.pdfcoke.com/doc/37122802/Brain-Fingerprin ting-Ppt. [5] Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2015 ISSN: 2277 128X International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Research Paper Available online at: www.ijarcsse.com Brain Fingerprinting Jackson Olive Aluri Dept. of CSE, Gayatri Vidya Parishad College of Engineering Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. [6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting. [7] Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434. [8] Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531541. [9] Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994 Nov 15. [10] Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3.

29

[11] Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent 5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18. [12] Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human event-related potentials. Amsterdam: Brandom, Russell (2015-02-02). "Is 'brain fingerprinting' a breakthrough or a sham?". The Verge. Rosenfeld, J. P. (2005). "Brain fingerprinting: A critical analysis" (PDF). Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 4 (1): 20–37. Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, March 5, 2001 "Deceiving the law". Nat Neurosci. 11 (11): 1231–1231. 1 November 2008. doi:10.1038/nn11081231 – via www.nature.com. Giridharadas, Anand (2008-09-15). "India's use of brain scans in court dismays critics". New York Times. Lakshmanan, A.R. (July 9, 2010). "Welcome verdict but questionable rider". The Hindu. "Welcome to Raksha Shakti University". www.rsu.ac.in. Retrieved 2018-04-05. "Brain fingerprint takes cops inside suspect's mind - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2018-04-05. "2005 missing woman case: Suspects taken to Gujarat for brain fingerprint". The Indian Express. 2016-06-23. Retrieved 2018-04-05.

30