A Technical Seminar Report on BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Submitted to JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD In partial fulfillment for the

requirement of the award of the degree BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY In ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING Submitted By ALPHA YADAV 08R01A0404

Under the Esteemed guidance of Mr. SHAIK BASHA

Department Electronics and Communication Engineering CMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (Approved by AICTE, Affiliated by JNTU, Kukatpally) Kandlakoya, Medchal Road, Hyderabad 2011-2012

23/01/2011

CMRIT

CMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(Approved by AICTE, Affiliated by JNTU, Kukatpally) Kandlakoya, Medchal Road, Hyderabad Department Electronics and Communication Engineering

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the seminar entitled BRAIN FINGERPRINTING is submitted by Alpha Yadav (08R01A0404) submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad for the academic year 2011-2012.

Mr. Shaik Basha Internal Guide

Prof. A. Balaji Nehru Head of Department

23/01/2011

CMRIT

ACKNOWLEDEMENT
I am extremely thankful to my internal guide Mr. Shaik Basha and Prof. A Balaji Nehru, Head of Department, Department of Electronics and Communication, for there constant inspiration and support. I express my thanks to all the help and co-ordination extended in bringing out this seminar successfully on time. I express my sincere gratitude to respected Mr. Janga Reddy, Principal of CMRIT and Prof. A Balaji Nehru, Head of Department of ECE, for their valuable guidance, encouragement and suggestions.

23/01/2011

CMRIT

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.

23/01/2011

CMRIT

INDEX CONTENTS [Link]. CHAPTER 1

Introduction 1.1 6 Brain fingerprinting 7

CHAPTER 2
Technique 8

CHAPTER 3
Phases 3.1 10 Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting 10

CHAPTER 4
Applications 4.1 4.2 4.3 14 23/01/2011 5 CMRIT 11 Counter terrorism 11 Criminal justice 12 Medical 13 4.4

Additional Applications

CHAPTER 5
Case study 15

CHAPTER 6
Comparison with other technologies 19

CHAPTER 7
Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court 20

CHAPTER 8
Record of 100% 21

CHAPTER 9
Conclusion 22

REFERENCES LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES [Link].

Fig 2.1 - Detection of guilty person 9 Fig 5.1 - Brain Wave Responses 16 Fig 5.2 - Head band placed suspect 18

CHAPTER 1 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 23/01/2011 6 CMRIT

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 crimerelevant 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. Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may or may not be many kinds of peripheral evidence, but the brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The fundamental difference between a perpetrator and a falsely accused, innocent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the details of the crime stored in his brain, and the innocent suspect does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

23/01/2011

CMRIT

1.1 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. In this respect, Brain Fingerprinting 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. Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this is hotly disputed by specialized researchers. When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting provides a means to objectively and scientifically connect evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is similar to the process of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence found at the scene of the crime; only the evidence evaluated by Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain.) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and nontestimonial manner.

23/01/2011

CMRIT

CHAPTER 2 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. The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimuls or a stimulas the proband is asked to count. The novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response to stimuli related to the crime in question e.g., a murder weapon or a victim's face. Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. Brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses. Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also, 23/01/2011 9 CMRIT

unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth.

fig 2.1 Detection of a guilty person. The Brain Fingerprinting system mathematically analyzes the brain-wave responses and makes a determination of "information present ("match") or "information absent" ("no match"). "Information present" means that the probe responses, like the target responses, contain a MERMER, indicating that the crime-relevant information is stored in the brain. "Information absent" means that the details of the crime are not stored in the brain. The Brain Fingerprinting system also computes a statistical confidence for the determination of "information present" or "information absent." 23/01/2011 10 CMRIT

The entire Brain Fingerprinting System is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli and recording of electrical brain activity, as well as a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information present" ("guilty") or "information absent" ("innocent"), and a statistical confidence level for this determination. At no time during the testing and data analysis do any biases and interpretations of a system expert affect the stimulus presentation or brain responses.

CHAPTER 3 PHASES 3.1 Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is 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 (i.e., 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; and 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 details of the crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. The expert then conducts the Brain Evidence Collection in order to determine whether or not the evidence from the crime 23/01/2011 11 CMRIT

scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the 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 brain of the suspect.

CHAPTER 4 APPLICATIONS 4.1. COUNTER TERRORISM:

Brain fingerprinting can help address the following critical elements in the fight against terrorism: 1: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. 2: 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. 3: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.

23/01/2011

12

CMRIT

4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization. Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be peripheral evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, but the brain of the perpetrator is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The terrorist has knowledge of organizations, training and plans that an innocent person does not have. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientific way to detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical and timely solution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. It is now possible to determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist training and knowledge of terrorist activities. With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific breakthrough has now become a practical applied technology. A new era in security and intelligence gathering has begun. Now, terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately. No longer should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no reason why an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of terrorist activity. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremely high degree of accuracy those who are involved with terrorist activity and those who are not.

4.2. 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. DNA evidence 23/01/2011 13 CMRIT

and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major crimes. It is estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to 70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. The potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and accuracy of the entire system, from investigations to parole hearings. Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcement professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailed knowledge of the crimes.

4.3. 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. First generation tests have proven to be more 23/01/2011 14 CMRIT

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. The incidence of Alzheimers and other forms of dementia is growing rapidly throughout the world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables early diagnosis economically and that can also accurately measure the effectiveness of treatments for these diseases. Research has now demonstrated that analysis of the P300 brainwave can show dementia onset and progression. MERMER technology, developed and patented by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, includes the P300 brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive measure than the P300 alone. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories is now developing diagnostic and monitoring systems for Alzheimers using this exciting new technology. With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be delayed through medications and dietary and lifestyle changes.

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

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

An accurate, inexpensive and easy to administer test for Alzheimers and dementia will improve the healthcare process dramatically, and help improve the quality of life for millions of people.

23/01/2011

15

CMRIT

4.4. Additional Applications:

In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances in measuring campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today are evaluated subjectively using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly more advanced, scientific methods to help determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost competitive with current methodologies. This technology will be able to help determine what information is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a branding campaign do people remember the brand, the product, etc. and how do the results vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure the comparative effectiveness of multiple media types. In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will be able to help reduce the incidence of insurance fraud by determining if an individual has knowledge of fraudulent or criminal acts. The same type of testing can help to determine if an individual has specific knowledge related to computer crimes where there is typically no witness or physical evidence. Brain Fingerprinting technology can play a significant role in Security Testing when investigators know specific details of a crime, training or group affiliation. It can also determine if a person has specific "classified" or confidential information stored in their brain. Typical applications include: Visa Applications 2nd Level Testing Polygraph "False-Positive"2nd Level Testing Corporate Security Insurance Fraud,Security Clearances,Computer Hacking.

23/01/2011

16

CMRIT

CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDIES

The biggest breakthrough, according to Farwell, was its role in freeing convicted murderer Terry Harrington, who had been serving a life sentence in Iowa State Penitentiary for killing a night watchman in 1977. In 2001, Harrington requested a new trial on several grounds, including conflicting testimony in the original trial. Farwell was faced with an immediate and obvious problem: 24 years had passed since the trial. Evidence had been presented and transcripts published long ago; the details of the crime had long since come to light. What memories of the crime were left to probe? But Farwell combed the transcripts and came up with obscure details about which to test Harrington. Harrington was granted a new trial when it was discovered that some of the original police reports in the case had been missing at his initial trial. By 2001, however, most of the witnesses against Harrington had either died or had been discredited. Finally, when a key witness heard that Harrington had "passed" his brain fingerprinting test, he recanted his testimony and the prosecution threw up its hands. Harrington was set free. The following page displays Terry Harrington's average brain-wave responses recorded in response to three types of stimuli: (1) Targets (illustrated on the figure with a solid/red line) are phrases that were made relevant to the subject by instructing him to 23/01/2011 17 CMRIT

press a particular button when they appeared on the screen. Note the large MERMER (evident here as a positive voltage peak at approximately 800 msec followed by a negative voltage peak at approximately 1100 msec), which indicates that these stimuli are relevant to the subject. (2) Irrelevants (dotted/green line) are phrases that are not relevant. The MERMER is absent. (3) Probes (bold/blue line) are phrases relevant to events that took place the night of the Schweer murder, according to alibi witnesses. According to these witnesses, Harrington participated in these events that took place far from the crime scene at the time of the crime. The large MERMER in response to probes indicates that these specific details of the events that took place elsewhere at the same time as the crime are relevant and noteworthy for this subject. Note that the brain response to probes matches the brain response to targets, which also contains a MERMER.

Y-axis: voltage in micro volts at the parietal (Pz) scalp site. X-axis: time in milliseconds (msec). Stimulus was presented at 0 msec.

23/01/2011

18

CMRIT

Fig 5.1 Brain wave responses have shown using Targets, Probes and Irrels.

In Macon County, Mo., Sheriff Robert Dawson learned about the method from his secretary, who had also seen it featured on television. In 1999, Dawson ordered a test on J. B. Grinder, accused of raping and murdering a 25-yearold woman. Grinder had admitted and denied the allegations 23/01/2011 19 CMRIT

so many times that, according to Dawson, "We didn't know what to believe anymore." Confronted with the test results, which seemed to confirm one of Grinder's many confessions, Grinder pled guilty to the charges and also admitted to killing three other girls in Arkansas. When another murder investigation ran into problems earlier this year, Dawson turned again to brain fingerprinting. He refrained from discussing the details of the case with the suspect and with the media so that the P300 probes would be valid. While the suspect denied knowing anything about the case, Farwell's test suggested otherwise. When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting provides a means to objectively and scientifically connect evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is similar to the process of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence found at the scene of the crime; only the evidence evaluated by Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain.) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and non-testimonial manner.

23/01/2011

20

CMRIT

Fig 5.2 A blue color headband placed on suspects head, with a computer placed in front of him displaying the series of relevant stimuli, words, and pictures taken from crime scene. Brain Fingerprinting incorporates the following procedure. A sequence of words or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," "irrelevants," and "probes." The targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects: the subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets, and to press another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a MERMER. Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the crime. These irrelevants do not elicit a MERMER. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the crime or situation under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes. For a subject who has committed the crime, the probes are noteworthy due to his knowledge of the details of the crime, and therefore probes elicit a brain 23/01/2011 21 CMRIT

MERMER. For an innocent subject lacking this detailed knowledge of the crime, the probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimuli. For such a subject, the probes are not noteworthy, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER.

CHAPTER 6 Comparison with other technologies

Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scene with evidence on the person of the perpetrator. Similarly, Brain Fingerprinting matches informational evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. The brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the suspect's actions. Brain Fingerprinting has nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to determine if someone has committed a specific crime or other act. No questions are asked and no answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA and fingerprints, the results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time. Should we really rely on memory to detect lies in people? Brain is much more complicated than we have the knowledge of. I am not sure whether we should tie memory with lying, in which case Brain Fingerprinting is not better than Lie detectors. I admit current lie detectors have some issues with reliability and do not have accuracy result of 100% like Farwell did with Brain Fingerprinting. But I rather have lie detector improved with more technology than relying on Brain Fingerprinting. Memory is just not stable enough to be used in criminal justice system. Maybe, I just do not have enough understanding and/or knowledge of memory, how brain works, and how Brain Fingerprinting, and will have change of mind once I do. But for now, this is where I stand and I think the criminal justice system is with me on this.

23/01/2011

22

CMRIT

CHAPTER 7 Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court

The admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court has not yet been established. The following well established features of Brain Fingerprinting, however, will be relevant when the question of admissibility is tested in court. 1) Brain Fingerprinting has been thoroughly and scientifically tested. 2) The theory and application of Brain Fingerprinting have been subject to peer review and publication. 3) The rate of error is extremely low -- virtually nonexistent -and clear standards governing scientific techniques of operation of the technology have been established and published. 4) The theory and practice of Brain Fingerprinting have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. 5) Brain Fingerprinting is non-invasive and non-testimonial 23/01/2011 23 CMRIT

CHAPTER 8 Record of 100% 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 23/01/2011 24 CMRIT

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. Over 120 subjects in the above four experiments were correctly classified as possessing or not possessing the critical information stored in the brain. There were no false positives, no false negatives, and no indeterminate. In one criminal case, Brain Fingerprinting vindicated a police officer falsely accused of a felony. In another criminal case, Brain Fingerprinting implicated a serial killer in a murder that had remained unsolved for 15 years. In all of these studies and cases, words, phrases, or pictures flashed on a computer screen containing information relevant to the crimes or other investigated situations elicited a MERMER only in the subjects who possessed the critical information. Previous published research by Dr. Farwell, his colleagues, and other scientists has consistently demonstrated similar results.

CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes, identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other applications. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement 23/01/2011 25 CMRIT

agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects. The detection of concealed information stored in the brains of suspects, witnesses, intelligence sources, and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement, government and private investigations, and intelligence operations. Brain Fingerprinting presents a new paradigm in forensic science. This new system detects information directly, on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity, measured non-invasively from the scalp. Since Brain Fingerprinting depends only on brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject.

REFERENCES:

23/01/2011

26

CMRIT

1. Brain Fingerprinting, Website: [Link]//brain fingerprinting. 2. Brain Fingerprinting, [Link] 3. Early speculations of brain fingerprinting from, [Link] Fingerprinting. 4. Electroencephalography, [Link] 5. Working from [Link] 6. J. Lehtonen, EEG-based Brain Computer Interfaces (Thesis), Department of Electrical and Communications Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology, 105 pp., 2002, [Link] Braincomputer interfaces for communication and controlJonathan R. Wolpaw and Niels Birbaumer.

7.

8. Wasserman S, Bockenholt U. (1989). Bootstrapping: applications to psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 26:208-221.

23/01/2011

27

CMRIT

23/01/2011

28

CMRIT