PONDICHERRY ENGINEERING COLLEGE PONDICHERRY PONDICHERRY-605014

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PAPER PRESENTATION ON BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

SUBMITTED BY

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.

INTRODUCTION
Forensic science is constantly evolving, from the discovery of the uniqueness of the human fingerprint, to the ability to match a criminal to his crime through DNA profiling; technology continues to provide investigators with new weapons. But fingerprint and DNA evidence are discovered in the only one percent of all cases. When trusted techniques fail, investigators must turn to cutting-edge technology to bring invisible clues to light.

Every criminal leaves evidence behind. The key is to know how to find it. A new technique is testing a way of tapping the suspects mind, to turn the criminal's own memory against him. Dr. Lawrence Farwell is the Chairman and Chief Scientist at Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in Seattle, Washington. He has developed a new computerized system known as brain fingerprinting. It reads the memory centers of the human brain. He believes that Brain Fingerprinting will one day be used to positively link perpetrators to their crimes. Brain Fingerprinting may seem similar to Polygraph (usually called a Lie Detector), but it differs in important ways. A polygraph measures physiologic responses such as heart rate, sweating, breathing, and other processes that are only indirectly related to brain function. Brain Fingerprinting information comes directly from brain function. It and other related tests do not measure truthfulness but seek to determine whether the subject has a particular memory. SCIENCE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING When someone commits a crime, his brain records (i.e.) it has a memory.

Brain Fingerprinting seeks to reveal that memory, by showing the suspect evidence taken from the crime scene. A head band with sensors is placed on the subject.A series of pictures or words is flashed on the screen. The computer records

the brain waves produced in response to what the subject sees.The responses are recorded as a wave form.

By analyzing the pattern of waves, Farwell can determine if the subject is recognizing what he is seeing. So when you have a situation where a crime has been committed, and there are certain details only the suspect with know, then we can test: does this brain have these details stored in it? If so, then the suspect committed the crime. If not, then not. BRAIN FINGERPRINTING DETECTS INFORMATION Brain Fingerprinting detects information stored in the human brain. Sensors on a headband, register the subject's EEG, or brain wave responses to the computer images. The EEG is fed through an amplifier and into a computer that uses proprietary software to display and interpret the brain waves. A specific, electrical brain wave response, known as a P300, is emitted by the brain within a fraction of a second when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it is seen as being insignificant and not noteworthy and a P300 is not emitted. In his research on the P300 response, 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 comprises a P300 response, occurring 300 to 800 ms after the stimulus, and additional patterns occurring more than 800 ms after the stimulus, providing even more accurate results.

Mera Using multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA), shows that a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MER), known as a memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER), is elicited when a person recognizes and processes a stimulus that is particularly noteworthy 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. Computer Controlled

Information not present

Information present

The entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli, recording of electrical brain activity, a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli (Target, Irrelevant, Probe), and produces a determination of "information present" or "information absent," and a statistical confidence level for this determination. SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE Three types of stimuli are presented: Targets, Irrelevant, and Probes. The Targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects, i.e., the subject is given a list of the Target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to Targets and another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the relatively rare Targets are singled out in the task being performed, the Targets are noteworthy for the subject, and each Target stimulus elicits a MERMER. Most of the non-Target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the situation under investigation. This Irrelevant do not elicit a MERMER. Some of the non-Target stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as Probes. For a subject who has participated in the situation in question, the Probes are noteworthy due to the subject's
6

knowledge of that situation, and, therefore, Probes elicit a MERMER when the subject is knowledgeable. Probes are indistinguishable from the Irrelevant for a subject who is not knowledgeable about the situation under investigation, and thus Probes do not elicit a MERMER if the subject is not knowledgeable. Scalp recording was done with disposable EEG electrodes, similar to those used in standard EEG recording. The electrodes were embedded in a special headband designed and constructed by Dr. Farwell's Human Brain Research Laboratory.

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS : 1 Harringtons Case

In April 2000, Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Harrington. Brain responses showed conclusively that the record stored in Harringtons brain did not match the crime scene and did match his alibi, according to Dr. Farwell. The Brain Fingerprinting test results were the first new evidence supporting Harringtons claim of innocence in over 2

2 Dr. Richardsons Comment

Drew Richardson, PhD a senior agent of the FBI and a scientist in the FBI Laboratories for 26 years says "I was assigned to collaborate with Dr. Farwell in the research, design and laboratory testing of a research study on Brain Fingerprinting technology. In our study, indeed in all the studies to date, Brain Fingerprinting testing has proved to be 100% accurate, wherever a determination can be made. I estimate that up to 70% of major crimes would someday be appropriate for applying Brain Fingerprinting technology.

APPLICATIONS: [1] Helps to Catch a Serial Killer

Macon County, Missouri Sheriff Robert Daws on engaged Dr. Farwell to conduct a Brain fingerprinting test on J. B. Grinder, who had been a suspect in an unsolved murder case for 15 years. The test results showed that the record stored in his brain matched critical details of the crime scene that only the perpetrator would know. Faced with an almost certain conviction and a probable death sentence, Grinder pled guilty in exchange for life in prison without the possibility parole. He then also confessed to the previously unsolved murders of three other women.
7

[2 ]National Security Applications

In a terrorist act, evidence such as fingerprints or DNA may not be available, but the brain of the perpetrator is always there planning, executing, and recording the crime. There are memories of the crime stored in the brain of the perpetrator and in the brains of those who helped plan the crime. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories technology can detect these records stored in the brain and help identify trained terrorists before they strike, including those that are in long-term sleeper cells. The technology will also be used to improve security in areas like VISA applications and the protection of classified information [3]ALZHEIMERS DISEASE: Brain fingerprinting can be used to identify persons suffering from Alzheimers disease where a person suffers from loss of memory.

Limitations of Brainfingerprinting: [1] Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal
what information is stored in the subjects brain. It does not detect how that information got there. [2] If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. [3] Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place. For example, an individual may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong motive to murder the individual.

RESULT
T here are many different ways to present MERMER brain response data visually. Different methods illustrate different features of the data. No one method can adequately capture all of the information incorporated in the data in a visually recognizable form. One method that is often effective in providing a visual representation of the differences in brain responses involves plotting average responses to Probe, Target, and Irrelevant stimuli as voltage over time at a specific scalp location.

Figures 1 and 2 present the average brain responses to Probe, Target, and Irrelevant stimuli for two of the subjects. Figure 1 presents data for a subject who is knowledgeable regarding the investigated event. Figure 2 presents data for a subject who is not knowledgeable regarding the investigated event. These figures present plots of voltage over time at the parietal (Pz) scalp location. In these figures, the MERMER appears as a positive voltage peak at approximately 500 msec followed by a negative voltage deflection maximal at approximately 1200 - 1500 msec. (The latency of these deflections varies according to the speed of the individual subjects' brain processing.) The brain responses of two subjects whose data are presented here are typical of their respective groups, knowledgeable and not knowledgeable. As can be clearly seen in the figures, for the knowledgeable subjects (Figure 1) the MERMER is elicited in response to both Targets and Probes. For the subjects who were not knowledgeable (Figure 2), the MERMER is elicited only in response to Targets.

(Figure1) Information Present Brain Response

(Figure 2) Information Absent Brain Response

CONCLUSION The 100-percent accuracy and high confidence level of the results, however, provide further support for results from previous research using brain MERMER testing. Todays sophisticated crime scene analysis techniques can sometimes place the perpetrator at the scene of the crime; however, physical evidence is not always present. Knowledge of numerous details of the crime, such as the murder weapon, the specific position of the body, the amount of money stolen -- any information not available to the public -- may reveal that a particular individual is associated with the crime. Additionally, if research determines that brain MERMER testing is reliable enough that it could be introduced as evidence in court; it may be the criminal investigative tool of the future. REFERENCES [1] Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434 [2] Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifaceted

electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994 Nov 15

10

[3] Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent 5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18 [4]Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, March 5, 2001.

11