Ijcot v3i9p101

International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends –Volume 3 Issue 9 –Oct 2013

Brain Waves Detection Technique Prof. Sapna S. Khapre #1, Prof. Sheetal M. Parate *2 #1,*2

CSE/IT Department,S. B. Jain Institute of Technology, Management & Research Nagpur, Maharashtra,India

Abstract - Brain waves detection technique is also called Brain Fingerprinting which detects concealed information by measuring brain waves generated by brain of suspect.

The planning of any abuse activity of crime has been done by human mind, which is also store in human mind. Here we are capturing those data for finding the human tendency whether he is a criminal or innocent person. In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America. This is called “Brain fingerprinting”. Brain fingerprinting technology is a new scientific technology to detect whether specific information is stored in a person’s brain. This technology can provide evidence to identify criminals and terrorists accurately and scientifically. Brain Fingerprinting testing measures brainwave responses to crime relevant or terrorism-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. To date, Brain Fingerprinting testing has not resulted in any incorrect determinations – there have been no false positives or false negatives. It has provided highly accurate results in over 200 tests, including tests on FBI agents and tests sponsored by the CIA and the US Navy. Brain Fingerprinting testing has been ruled admissible in court in a murder case. The EEG (electroencephalograph) measures brain electrical activity.

Keywords— Brain fingerprinting, MERMER. I. INTRODUCTION In any crime or terrorist act, the brain of the perpetrator is always there -planning, executing, and recording the crime.

There may or may not be other kinds of evidence. Brain Fingerprinting technology can identify the perpetrators and planners of terrorist acts by detecting the record stored in the brain. In addition, it could be used to identify trained terrorists. This capability is demonstrated by Brain Fingerprinting’ s proven ability to detect specific training, as shown in tests at the FBI and the US Navy and tests to detect concealed bomb-making (IED/EOD) knowledge. Brain Fingerprinting technology can detect trained terrorists, bomb makers, members of a terrorist cell, etc., even before they strike. Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell.

The theory is that the suspect's reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related

ISSN: 2249-2593

Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. One of the applications is lie detection. The fundamental difference between the perpetrator of a crime and an 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.

Similarly, a trained terrorist has specific terrorism-related knowledge stored in his brain. This is what Brain Fingerprinting testing detects scientifically. Words or pictures relevant to a crime, terrorist act, terrorist training, or specific knowledge or expertise are presented on a computer screen, in a series with other, irrelevant words or pictures. A suspect’s brainwave responses to these stimuli are measured noninvasively using a patented headband equipped with EEG sensors. A proprietary computer program then analyzes the data to determine if the crime-relevant information is stored in the brain. A specific, measurable brain response known as a P300 is emitted by the brain of a perpetrator who has the details of a crime stored in his brain, but not by an innocent suspect lacking this record in his brain. The P300 response has been extensively researched and widely published in leading professional journals for more than 30 years and has gained broad acceptance in the scientific field of psychophysiology.

A. Brain Fingerprinting: Brain Fingerprinting testing will determine if specific information is in the brain but will not tell us how it got there. It's like finding fingerprints at the crime scene; some, but not all, tie back to the perpetrator. If specific information is available about the planning and execution of the crime that a witness would not know, Brain Fingerprinting testing may be able to distinguish between a witness and a perpetrator. In addition, it can place a person at the scene of a crime or exonerate someone who was not there.

II. TECHNIQUE Details of any crime are always imprinted on the brain of the criminal that can be retrieved and recorded on an Electroencephalograph (EEG). This is the philosophy behind a novel test to catch the actual culprit. When the brain recognizes something, the memory centers are stimulated. The neurons fire synchronously, eliciting characteristic changes in brain activity. It is these changes, which can be measured using electrodes, which investigators look for when trying to

http://www.ijcotjournal.org

Page 364

International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends –Volume 3 Issue 9 –Oct 2013 determine whether someone recognizes a particular piece of information.

which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting:

The conventional polygraphs, or lie detector tests, are based on emotional responses to stress such as increased heartbeat and blood pressure, and excessive sweating; these responses can be faked. But regardless of the verbal response of the suspect, his brain will always tell the truth. Discovering this answer from the involuntary brain activity is the task of a new investigating tool, called brain fingerprinting (BF). By tapping into the specific information stored in a person’s memory, BF provides a scientific solution to the problem of identifying criminals and trained terrorists. This test of guilt or innocence has been ruled admissible in US court, implying that this new branch of forensic science has the potential to revolutionize the whole criminal investigation and justice system.

1. Brain fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection;

A. Event Related Potential (ERP) and P300 Response Buried in the EEG are also signals that reveal information about brain processes. These signals are detected by timing changes in the EEG after events such as listening to a sound or viewing a picture. The resulting activity is called an event related potential (ERP), which clearly stands above the background brain activity. Generally, the signals occurring after 250 milliseconds are thought to reflect higher level cognitive processes such as memory or language.

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 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.

C. Conduction of Brain Fingerprinting

Stating more clearly, when a subject recognizes an information out of a series of irrelevant information, a signal is emitted, typically within 300–1000 millisecond after the stimulus, called a P300 response. For example, if a subject is exposed to a series of random names and occasionally his own name, a P300 response is evoked.

The utility of the P300 in detection of deception was recognized as early as 1988, when it was shown that it could be used to identify college students who were lying to lie after stealing something. However, the P300 has only about 878 percent success rate in revealing the presence of relevant information.

B. Four Phases of 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,

ISSN: 2249-2593

The test involves three kinds of information to determine whether a subject has specific crime-related information in his brain:   

Targets: information the subject definitely knows; this can be ensured by telling the subject before the test starts.

Irrelevants: information that subject definitely does not know; this can be ensured by simply making up the information.

Probes: information relevant to the crime or situation, which the subject may or may not know. It can be anything from a phone number to an al-Qaeda code word.

The response of the brain to information is measured using a headband with electrodes. Target information elicits a ‘yes’ response or a MERMER. This is used as a control. Irrelevant information will not elicit a MERMER. A MERMER in response to probe stimulus indicates recognition or the presence of certain information.

http://www.ijcotjournal.org

III. CONCLUSION

Page 365

International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends –Volume 3 Issue 9 –Oct 2013 In law enforcement and criminal justice, Brain Fingerprinting can be a great asset to both prosecutors and defense attorneys, both pre- and post-conviction. Through this revolutionary technology, law enforcers can determine if a suspect has detailed, specific knowledge of a crime and provide scientific evidence where none existed previously.

Brain Fingerprinting also has many exciting applications in several other very large markets: forensics and national security, medical diagnostics, advertising and research, insurance fraud and in the criminal justice system, to name just a few.

IV. FUTURE SCOPE Brain Fingerprinting has amazing applications in any number of sectors. When applied by law enforcement agencies and defendants in criminal cases, Brain Fingerprinting can eliminate many innocent suspects at the very beginning of the investigation. It can reduce crime by helping to bring perpetrators to justice. And, the knowledge that such an accurate and scientific technique is available may serve as a powerful deterrent. It can also be applied by the medical community to diagnose Altzheimer's and other dementia at an earlier stage, allowing for a slower progression of symptoms. It can identify the retention and recall rate of advertising messages, enabling ad agencies and their clients to get more “bang for their buck". And it can be invaluable in keeping our nation safer in counterterrorism situations.

ISSN: 2249-2593

REFERENCES [1] Farwell L.A. (2011a). Brain fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8(2), 56-68. Available at "Brain fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice” Accessed July 2, 2011.

[2] Farwell, L.A. (2011b). Brain fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Seattle: Excalibur Scientific Press.

Available at “Brain fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Accessed”, July 2, 2011.

[3] Dr. Farwell's Brain fingerprinting Laboratories website Accessed July 21, 2009.

[4] Vrij, A. (2008), “Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities”, 2nd Ed. Chichester, England: Wiley.

[5] PBS Innovation Series – “Brain fingerprinting: Ask the Experts” Accessed July 20, 2008.

[6] Discussion of legal and scientific critiques of Dr. Farwell's theories Accessed July 21, 2008.

[7] Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006a). “Brain fingerprinting in Field Conditions,” Psychophysiology, 43:5 S37-S38.

[8] Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006b). “Brain fingerprinting in Laboratory Conditions,” Psychophysiology, 43: S38. .

http://www.ijcotjournal.org

Page 366