Brain Fingerprinting
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
karthikiyer2k
Active In SP
**

Posts: 4
Joined: Aug 2009
#1
20-08-2009, 08:38 PM


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.


Attached Files
.doc   brain-fingerprinting.doc (Size: 81.5 KB / Downloads: 628)
Reply
computer science crazy
Super Moderator
******

Posts: 3,048
Joined: Dec 2008
#2
20-08-2009, 11:06 PM

Hey.
Karthikiyer welcomes to seminar and presentationproject and implimentations.com
i read brainfinger printing.Its interesting topics.
And surely help to lot of engineering students ..
Thanks for your great contribution
Use Search at http://topicideas.net/search.php wisely To Get Information About Project Topic and Seminar ideas with report/source code along pdf and ppt presenaion
Reply
project topics
Active In SP
**

Posts: 2,492
Joined: Mar 2010
#3
12-04-2010, 08:34 PM

please read
topicideashow-to-brain-finger-printing-technology--2715
topicideashow-to-brain-finger-print-technology
topicideashow-to-brain-fingerprinting
for getting all information about BRAIN FINGER PRINT TECHNOLOGY
Use Search at http://topicideas.net/search.php wisely To Get Information About Project Topic and Seminar ideas with report/source code along pdf and ppt presenaion
Reply
smart paper boy
Active In SP
**

Posts: 2,053
Joined: Jun 2011
#4
20-06-2011, 11:15 AM


.doc   brainfingerprinting.doc (Size: 3.55 MB / Downloads: 108)
ABSTRACT
Throughout history, humans in society have had a need to determine the identity of individuals who have committed crimes. In the last century, there has been unprecedented progress in developing accurate, scientific methodologies for
Connecting a suspect with a crime. This paper reports the discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, a new technology that uses brain waves to connect evidence stored in the brain of a suspect with evidence connected with a crime, and discusses Brain Fingerprinting from the perspective of scientific progress in criminal investigations.
The promise of this new technology is to provide an accurate and scientific means through which perpetrators can be identified, and the innocent can be cleared, based on the evidence from the one place where a comprehensive record of every crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting has been preceded by two major breakthroughs in criminal investigation in the last hundred years.
One of the great breakthroughs of modern criminal investigation came when it was discovered that human fingerprints A secondbreakthrough was the recent discover of"DNA fingerprinting." Like fingerprints, DNA can be used to connect or match evidence that is collected at the crime scene.
Although both DNA fingerprinting and conventional fingerprinting are highly accurate, they share two drawbacks. Both techniques involve considerable extra work and skill for investigators. Collecting and preserving fingerprints and biological samples involve significant costs in time, resources, and money. More serious drawback is DNA samples and fingerprints are found in only a very small percentage of cases about one in a hundred.
There is a tremendous need for other accurate, scientific means of matching evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects, particularly in the cases where no fingerprints or DNA samples are left at the scene.
This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal take with him from the crime scene that records his involvement in the crime?" T h e answer to this question, of course, is the brain. The brain of the criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera -- and like his DNA and fingerprints,the brain always stays with the criminal.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, numerous technological innovations have signaled landmark changes in how authorities conduct investigations. From fingerprinting to DNA testing, these one-time technological marvels turned police investigation staples have shaped the way that justice is conceptualized in America, as well as the way in which society interacts and is influenced by law enforcement. One such new technology carries with it an emerging potential to revolutionize the investigatory landscape Brain Fingerprinting (“BF”) the law enforcement technology. The future of police investigations may very well be under construction in Seattle, Washington, where Dr.Lawrence A. Farwell has created Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (“BFL”), a privately held company created to pursue the study and application of BF.BF testing, in a nutshell, is an examination designed to determine if particular information is familiar to a test subject in a specific context (such as that of a crime).Essentially, a BF test asks a suspect’s brain if it is familiar with a particular place, time, or action, and does so using brain monitoring technology that is nearly impossible to deceive. BF has been called “a perfect example of a technology at the tipping point making its way from the lab into our culture,” and “an intriguing, novel, scientific venture that is inching toward the doors of courtrooms everywhere.” Although BF may “sound like something straight out of a science-fiction movie” it is part of a growing trend of technological innovations that are rapidly coming to the forefront in today’s heightened level of security. As one commentator has explained, “These aren’t cinematic gadgets from a James Bond set. They are real world technologies that were on recently display for members of Congress as lawmakers consider new steps to beef up security at airports, border crossings, and other facilities around the country. The P300 event-related brain potential which is the key element of most of the published brainwave based deception research. The “Guilty Knowledge Test” or GKT, which in a form modified for P300 methods, yielded the P300 protocol for detecting concealed, crime-related information. The issue of P300-based tests’ accuracies Farwell claims that his method is based on a brain activity index, the “MERMER,” ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") which goes beyond P300 methods.
1.1BACKGROUND
Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the MERMER, or “Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response .” He claims that the P300 event-related potential (ERP, discussed below) is but one element of the MERMER. It will be seen later that P300 is very likely the basis and essence of the MERMER. Indeed, at the Harrington Appeal hearing of 2000 Harrington vs Iowa 2000 In any case, it seems unlikely that Farwell would argue against the assertion that the P300 ERP was the brain wave which first impelled several investigators to study the potential of EEG waves as deception indices. The history of this ongoing research program will make this clear. First, however, a brief review of P300 phenomenology is in order. It is well known that between an electrode placed on the scalp surface directly over brain and another electrode connected to a relatively neutral (electrically) part of the head (i.e., remote from brain cells, such as the earlobe), an electrical voltage, varying as a function of time, exists. These voltages comprise the spontaneously ongoing electroencephalogram or EEG, and are commonly known as brain waves. If during the recording of EEG, a discrete stimulus event occurs, such as a light flash or tone pip, the EEG breaks into a series of larger peaks and troughs lasting up to two seconds after the stimulus. These waves, signaling the arrival in cortex of neural activity generated by the stimulus, comprise the wave series called the ERP, the EEG potential series related to the stimulus event. Actually, the ERP “rides on” the ongoing EEG, by which it is sometimes obscured in single trials. Thus, one typically averages the EEG samples of many repeated presentation trials of either the same stimulus or stimulus category (e.g., male names), and the ensuing averaged stimulus-related activity is revealed as the ERP, while the non-stimulus-related features of the EEG average out, approaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful piece of information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more frequently presented, non-meaningful stimuli.
1.2 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 time to a subject, the familiar, previously learned words but not the others elicited a P300. As suggested above, Rosenfeld, Nasman, Whalen,Cantwell, Mazzeri (1987) recognized that the Fabiani et a. (1983) study suggested that P300 could be used to detect concealed guilty knowledge, 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 a familiar 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 in no way affects the claims of the BF approach. Farwell and Smith (2001), however, seem to have over-extended this distinction: “Brain MERMER testing has almost nothing in common with ‘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 the suspect. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during the procedure, and in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth at any time.” This assertion is misleading: In fact the subject does give behavioral button press responses. One button means “No, I don’t recognize this stimulus.” If the guilty subject presses this no button to a guilty knowledge item, he is lying with his button press, if not his voice. Lying is the clear inference if there is no other innocuous explanation for the brain response, 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 subtitle of Farwell and Donchin (1991), Farwell’s only peer-reviewed paper on P300-based deception detection in a psychology, neuroscience or psychophysiology journal. Finally, when Farwell and Smith (2001; not a journal in psychology, psychophysiology, or neuroscience) stated, “in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth,” 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 studies in which the opposite is shown, and it is discussed why truthful subjects in fact produce much larger 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), 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, the items 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 to respond by saying “yes” so as to assure us they were paying attention to the screen at all times, 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. The special target items also evoked P300, as one might expect, since they too were rare and meaningful (task-relevant). (The 1988 study was actually the second of two closely related publications, the first having been published as Rosenfeld . et al., 1987.) This paradigm had many 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 indices of recognition. This required various other departures from the classic GKT method, such as signal averaging and target stimuli. Farwell and Donchin (1991) reported that in the 20 guilty cases, 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 their crimes, a procedure having limited ecological validity in field circumstances in which training of a suspect on details of a crime he/she was denying would not be possible. In the innocent 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 volunteering subjects were all previously admitted wrongdoers on the college campus. Their crime details were well-detected with P300, but these previously admitted wrongdoers no doubt had had much 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 versus previously 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 correct decision was possible in only three of four (75%) innocent cases.
Reply
seminar paper
Active In SP
**

Posts: 6,455
Joined: Feb 2012
#5
05-04-2012, 10:49 AM

Brain Finger Printing A Scientific Solution To Timeless Problems



.pdf   vit brain finger.pdf (Size: 237.91 KB / Downloads: 25)

Abstract
This paper presents a new technique for identifying criminals known as
Brain Fingerprinting (BFP). The main focus of this paper is to provide a
detailed description of the various steps involved in BFP testing along with
its advantages over conventional methods of crime detection like Fingerprint
comparison, DNA testing and Lie Detector testing. Finally an interesting
insight into various benefits and applications of BFP is presented in this
paper



Introduction
There is a tremendous need for other accurate, scientific means of matching
evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects,
particularly in the cases where no fingerprints or DNA samples are left at the
scene. This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal
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 brain of the
criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera and
like his DNA and fingerprints, the brain always stays with the criminal. This
is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

2. What is BFP ?
It 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
measures brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures
presented on a computer screen, there by providing valuable information
about the crime.

3. Objectives of BFP testing
Brain Fingerprinting Testing is a major, new, highly accurate, scientific
method to assist authorities to:
• Identify criminal suspects and innocent scientifically and accurately.
• Support juries in determining innocence or guilt and
• Provide significant other services that contribute to the national
defense

4. How BFP work ?
In BFP words or pictures relevant to a crime, terrorist act, or terrorist training
are presented on a computer screen, in a series with other irrelevant words or
pictures. A suspect’s brain- wave responses to these
stimuli are measured non-invasively using a headband equipped with EEG
sensors.


Applications of BFP
10.1 Multifaceted applications
Brain Fingerprinting Technology is a key strategy for implementation in
criminal justice systems, police, military, and private sector industrial
organizations at the international, federal, state, and local levels.



Conclusion
Currently, many crimes remain unsolved, while apparently many innocent
people are convicted and go to prison, and some innocent people are even
executed. Science can help. Many innocent suspects, some already
convicted, and some on death row, can exonerated while many more actual
criminals will be brought to justice by the newly discovered science of
Brain Fingerprinting in future.
Reply
seminar flower
Super Moderator
******

Posts: 10,120
Joined: Apr 2012
#6
25-06-2012, 03:03 PM

Brain Fingerprinting

.pptx   Brain Fingerprinting.pptx (Size: 689.97 KB / Downloads: 15)


INTRODUCTION

Brain Fingerprinting technique used to determine scientifically what information is, or is not stored in a particular brain.
It was invented by Dr. Lawrence Farwell.
Brain Fingerprinting method is based on an electric signal which is known as MERMER .

WHY BRAIN FINGERPRINTING ??

It is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts.
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.

How it works ?

Brain Fingerprinting method uses a signal which is known as MERMER i.e. Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic.
A sequence of words, phrases, or pictures is
presented on a video monitor to the subject,
wearing a special headband designed for detecting the brain wave responses.

The Brain MERMER


A MERMER is an electrical signal which is a part of the brainwave.
It is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy.
Occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation.
Can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers.

Computer Controlled

The entire Brain Fingerprinting System is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli and recording of electrical brain activity.
It has a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information present“ or "information absent“ .
A statistical confidence level can be determined.













Reply
seminar flower
Super Moderator
******

Posts: 10,120
Joined: Apr 2012
#7
21-07-2012, 12:27 PM

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING


.doc   brain-fingerprinting.doc (Size: 178.5 KB / Downloads: 19)

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.

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 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 crime-relevant 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..

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused, innocent suspects.


Reply

Important Note..!

If you are not satisfied with above reply ,..Please

ASK HERE

So that we will collect data for you and will made reply to the request....OR try below "QUICK REPLY" box to add a reply to this page

Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.


Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  blue brain ppt jaseelati 0 186 21-01-2015, 03:25 PM
Last Post: jaseelati
  ELECTRONICS MEET ANIMAL BRAIN PDF seminar tips 1 932 07-03-2013, 04:30 PM
Last Post: study tips
  blue brain project and implimentation full report seminar topics 55 41,156 02-03-2013, 03:13 PM
Last Post: seminar tips
  Definition of Blue Brain Report study tips 0 393 23-02-2013, 03:12 PM
Last Post: study tips
  A Brain-Machine Interface REPORT project girl 0 337 27-11-2012, 05:04 PM
Last Post: project girl
  Presentation on BRAIN GATE ppt seminar flower 0 724 09-10-2012, 02:33 PM
Last Post: seminar flower
  EEG Signal Acquisition, De-Noising and Classification for Brain Computer Interfaces seminar flower 0 446 06-10-2012, 11:33 AM
Last Post: seminar flower
  NEURONAL SPECIFICITY & PLASTICITY: FROM SPERRY TO THE BLUE BRAIN seminar flower 0 554 04-10-2012, 11:12 AM
Last Post: seminar flower
  BRAIN-MACHINE INTERFACE project uploader 0 419 01-08-2012, 11:36 AM
Last Post: project uploader
  Brain Fingerprinting project uploader 0 372 25-07-2012, 03:31 PM
Last Post: project uploader