Brain Fingerprinting

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 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..

This report describes new and potentially revolutionary

technology for the detection of concealed information that revolves around the non-
invasive recording of electrical brain activity. The electrical brain activity pattern
recorded and of interest is a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response
(MER) that occurs within less than one second after an examinee is visually presented
(via a computer screen) with words, short phrases, acronyms, or pictures that are
recognized and cognitively processed by that subject. This phenomenon, coupled with its
absence following the presentation of the same information to a subject for whom the
material is unknown or irrelevant, is the basis for discriminating between a subject with
“information present” and “information absent”. This would potentially allow for the
determination of a whole host of issues of interest to the law enforcement and intelligence
communities, e.g., (1) does a suspect have knowledge connecting him to specific
investigated criminal activity, (2) does an intelligence source have knowledge of the
internal workings of a hostile intelligence agency that would indicate that he was an
intelligence officer of that agency rather than who he claimed to be, (3) has an informant,
a debriefed spy, or a suspected member of a criminal organization accurately described
the entirety of his actions and knowledge, (4) did a convicted serial killer who claims to
have killed 40 to 50 individuals, other than the one(s) he was convicted of, actually
commit these acts, or are these claims merely the bravado of a condemned prisoner.

The potential benefit of this program extends to a broad range of law enforcement
applications, including organized crime, violent crime, white-collar crime, drug-related
crime, foreign counterintelligence, non-traditional targets, and other categories of
casework as well. This new technology promises to be of tremendous benefit both at the
national level and for state and local law enforcement agencies.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 1

Brain Fingerprinting

This document describes a revolutionary technology that is capable of detecting

concealed information stored in the brain through the electrophysiological manifestations
of information-processing brain activity. Previous research conducted by Dr. Lawrence
Farwell and his colleagues has shown this technique to be highly accurate in
distinguishing between individuals with “information present” and “information absent”
in mock crimes and actual minor crimes (see 1-9). Research conducted by Dr. Farwell in
collaboration with SSA Drew C. Richardson, Ph.D., FSRTC, Laboratory Division, FBI
indicates that the system is also effective in distinguishing between members of a
particular organization (in this case, the FBI) and others who are not knowledgeable
regarding that organization.

When a crime is committed, traces of the event are left at the scene of the crime and
elsewhere. The task of the investigators is to reconstruct what has happened and who has
been involved, based on the collection of such evidence. In addition to the physical and
circumstantial evidence that can be obtained, there is one place where an extensive record
of the crime is stored — in the brain of the perpetrator. If this record could be tapped,
criminal investigation and counterintelligence could be revolutionized.

Until recently, the only method of attempting to discern what information regarding a
crime or other situation of interest was stored in the brain of a suspect or witness has been
(1) to interrogate the subject, and (2) to attempt to determine whether or not the subject is
lying.

Conventional control question (CQT) polygraphy has been used as an aid in the attempt
to detect deception in such reports. The fundamental theory of conventional polygraphy
is that a deceptive individual will be more concerned with and experience more
emotional arousal in response to relevant questions than control questions, and this
emotional arousal will be accompanied by corresponding physiological arousal which can
be measured. Traditional interrogative polygraph ("lie detection") methods rely upon
using questioning formats in conjunction with the recording of physiological parameters
that reflect autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate,

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 2

Brain Fingerprinting

sweating, etc.). This information is peripheral to the cognitive aspects of deception or of

concealing guilty information.

Multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) technology presents the

possibility of focusing on the origins (at the level of subject recognition of guilty
knowledge) of concealed information rather than the peripheral physiological
manifestations of that knowledge. In addition to being a more direct physiological
approach (central nervous system vs. peripheral) to the question at hand, the Brain
Fingerprinting system may well overcome certain difficulties inherent with standard
polygraphy: (1) Innocent as well as guilty individuals may respond emotionally and
physiologically to crime-relevant questions, which may result in an innocent subject
falsely being found deceptive; (2) guilty individuals may fail to respond in the expected
way either emotionally or physiologically; (3) certain mental and physical
countermeasures can be practiced successfully with standard technology; and (4) a
conventional polygraph exam is highly stressful for the examinee, and involves deception
by the polygraphers.

In a conventional polygraph test, emotion-driven physiological responses to relevant

questions (regarding the situation under investigation) are compared to responses to
control questions, which are invasive, personal questions not relevant to the issue at hand
that are designed to be emotionally and physiologically disturbing to the subject. A
greater response to the relevant questions leads to a deceptive ("guilty") determination; a
greater response to the control questions leads to a non-deceptive ("innocent")
determination. In an attempt to avoid a false positive result (non-deceptive subject falsely
found deceptive), the examiner must ask penetrating questions in the pre-test interview to
find personal material sufficiently disturbing and stress-producing to produce effective
control questions. To elicit a stress response to the control questions during the test, the
examiner typically deceives the subject, leading him to believe that a large response to
control questions will make him appear guilty (deceptive), rather than innocent (non-
deceptive). This deception by the examiner is necessary, or at least highly instrumental,
to produce the response. Thus, in conventional polygraphy, innocent subjects — even if
they are correctly determined to be innocent and truthful — are deceived and subjected to
a highly invasive and stressful situation both during the pre-test interview and during the
test.

This latter shortcoming is generally justified by the correct end result of finding an
innocent subject non-deceptive to the relevant questions, but could be avoided altogether
with Brain Fingerprinting technology, which depends entirely on information processing
brain activity (i.e., recognition and processing of significant information) rather than an
artful and disturbing manipulation designed to produce emotional and physiological
responses to control question material. In fact, the pre-test interview for a Brain
Fingerprinting technology exam is a very clinical, emotionally neutral experience for all
subjects, whether or not they have specific information relevant to the situation under
investigation. The in-test portion of the Brain Fingerprinting technology exam does not
involve the asking of any questions, only the non-invasive recording of brain electrical
activity as subject views verbal or pictorial information on a computer screen.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 3

Brain Fingerprinting

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 word.

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.

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.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 4

Brain Fingerprinting

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

2.1 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

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 5

Brain Fingerprinting

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 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.

3 Brain Fingerprinting Technology

Dr. Lawrence Farwell observes brain responses on the operator monitor. The visual
stimuli are presented on the subject monitor. The subject's brain responses are conveyed
from the headband to the amplifiers, and then to the computer where they are analyzed. If
the computer detects a brain P300/MERMER, this indicates that specific information
relevant to the situation under investigation is stored in the brain.

The detection of concealed information stored in the brain of suspects, witnesses,

intelligence sources, and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement and
intelligence operations. Brain Fingerprinting technology presents a new paradigm in the
psychophysiological detection of concealed information. This new system detects
information directly, on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of
information-processing brain activity, measured non-invasively from the scalp. Brain
Fingerprinting technology depends only on brain information processing, it does not
depend on the emotional response of the subject.

Brain Fingerprinting technology utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response

analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. A memory and
encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited
when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or
noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, the P300/MERMER is absent. This

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 6

Brain Fingerprinting

pattern occurs within less than a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be
readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.

Brain Fingerprinting System: Detection of FBI Agent Knowledge

"Information Present" Brain Response
A. Parietal Area

B. Frontal Area

Stimulus Type: Target _____ Irrelevant......... Probe_____

B. Frontal Area

Stimulus Type: Target _____ Irrelevant......... Probe_____

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 7

Brain Fingerprinting

Brain Fingerprinting technology incorporates the following procedure: A sequence of

words, phrases, 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 another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the
targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a P300/MERMER. Most of the non-
target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the situation under investigation. These
irrelevants do not elicit a P300/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 as knowledge of the situation under investigation, the probes are noteworthy
due to the subject's knowledge of that situation, and therefore probes elicit a
P300/MERMER when the subject is "knowledgeable". Probes are indistinguishable from
the irrelevants for a subject who is not knowledgeable, and thus probes do not elicit a
P300/MERMER if the subject has no knowledge of the situation under investigation.

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 and produces a
determination of "information absent" or "information present," and a statistical
confidence level for this determination.

Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, Director and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting

Laboratories, Inc. in collaboration with then SSA Drew C. Richardson, Ph.D., FSRTC,
Laboratory Division, FBI applied the Brain Fingerprinting system in the detection of FBI
new agent trainees using FBI-relevant probes. The system correctly classified 100% of
the 17 FBI new agents tested, as well as 4 control subjects who were lacking any
knowledge regarding the FBI.

The Brain Fingerprinting system has potential application in a wide range of law
enforcement and intelligence operations, from detecting whether a suspect has knowledge
that would identify him as the perpetrator of a crime to detecting whether an individual
has knowledge that would indicate that he had undergone training by a foreign
intelligence or terrorist organization.

3.1 Instrumental Requirements and Multifaceted Electroencephalographic

Response Analysis

The equipment required for Brain Fingerprinting technology consists of a personal

computer (e.g., 486 - 66 MHz Gateway 2000), a data acquisition board (e.g., Scientific
Solutions Lab Master AD), a graphics card for driving two monitors from one PC (e.g.,
Colorgraphics Super Dual VGA), a four-channel EEG amplifier system (e.g.,
Neuroscience), and the software developed by the Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories for
data acquisition and analysis. The electrodes used to measure electrical brain activity are

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 8

Brain Fingerprinting

held in place by a special headband designed and constructed by Brain Fingerprinting

Laboratories for this purpose. (This new method for attaching electrodes is more
convenient and comfortable for the subject as well as quicker and easier for the operator
than previously available methods.) The software necessary to present the stimuli, collect
the electroencephalographic data, and analyze the data have been developed by Brain
Fingerprinting Laboratories.

In experiments using the Brain Fingerprinting system, brain responses to certain types of
stimuli are analyzed to detect a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response
(MER) known as the memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic
response (MERMER). The P300/MERMER contains several facets, both in the time and
frequency domains that can be detected with sophisticated signal analysis procedures. It
is elicited by stimuli that are noteworthy to a subject.

The Brain Fingerprinting system presents visual stimuli consisting of short phrases,
acronyms, or pictures on a video screen under computer control. Three categories of
stimuli are presented: "probes," "targets," and "irrelevants."

Probes are stimuli relevant to the crime under investigation. Irrelevants are, as the name
implies, irrelevant. For each probe stimulus, there are approximately four irrelevant
stimuli. The stimuli are structured such that the probes and irrelevants are
indistinguishable for a subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under
investigation. That is, if a given probe is an article of clothing relevant to the crime, four
articles of clothing irrelevant to the crime are also presented; if a particular probe
stimulus is a name, there are four irrelevant stimuli that are also names, and so on.

In addition to the probes and the irrelevants, a third type of stimuli, designated as targets,
is presented. About one-sixth of the stimuli are targets, one for each probe. The subject is
given a list of the targets, and is required to press a particular button whenever a target is
presented. (For all other stimuli, the subject is instructed to press another button.) Each
target is the same type of item as one of the probes and the several corresponding
irrelevants. The targets, since they are recognized and require a particular response, are
noteworthy for all subjects. The irrelevants are not noteworthy for any subjects. The
probes are noteworthy only to the subjects who possess the knowledge necessary to
recognize them — that is, the knowledge specific to the situation under investigation.

Research has shown that brain information processing of noteworthy stimuli results in a
characteristic brain electrical response known as a memory and encoding related
multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER). One of the most easily
measured aspects of this response (and the only one measured in early research) is an
electrically positive component, maximal at the midline parietal area of the head, with a
peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 msec. It is referred to variously as P300, P3,
P3b, or late positive component (LPC). Another more recently discovered aspect of the
MERMER is an electrically negative component, maximal at the midline parietal area
and also prominent at midline frontal area, with an onset latency of approximately 800 to
1200 msec. These components can be readily recognized through signal averaging

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 9

Brain Fingerprinting

procedures (1-9). Recent research suggests that a third aspect of the P300/MERMER is a
pattern of changes in the frequency domain characterized by a phasic shift in the
frequency power spectrum that can be detected using single-trial analysis techniques (8).

A subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation

recognizes only two types of stimuli: relevant, noteworthy, rare targets and irrelevant,
frequent stimuli (consisting in fact of true irrelevants, plus probes — which he does not
distinguish as being different from the irrelevants). The targets elicit a P300/MERMER,
and the irrelevants and (unrecognized) probes do not. A subject with specific information
relevant to the situation under investigation, however, recognizes a second noteworthy
type of stimuli, namely the probes, which are relevant to a crime or other situation in
which he has participated. Thus, for a guilty subject, the probes, too, elicit a
P300/MERMER.

What this experimental design accomplishes, essentially, is to create a two-stimulus

series for an individual without the specific information under investigation, and a three-
stimulus series (with the same stimuli) for an individual who possesses knowledge of the
specific information under investigation. The targets provide a template for a response to
stimuli known to be particularly noteworthy — P300/MERMER-producing stimuli. The
irrelevants provide a template for a response to stimuli that are irrelevant — non-
P300/MERMER-producing stimuli.

The determination of information present or information absent consists of comparing the

probe responses to the target responses, which contain a P300/MERMER, and to the
irrelevant responses, which do not. If the probe responses are similar to the target
responses, one can conclude that the subject recognizes the probes — which only
someone knowledgeable about the crime would do — and therefore is "knowledgeable".
If the brain responses to the probes are like those to the irrelevants — i.e., lacking a
P300/MERMER — then the subject can be determined to be lacking in knowledge of the
situation under investigation. (Note that what is detected is not actually guilt or
innocence, but knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the situation under
investigation.) In order for the test to be an effective indicator of knowledge or lack
thereof, stimuli must be structured such that only a knowledgeable person would
recognize the probe stimuli. The statistical technique of bootstrapping is employed to
compare the brain responses to the different types of stimuli, to make a determination of
"information absent" or "information present," and to provide a statistical confidence for
this determination.

Table 1 summarizes the three types of stimuli presented and the predicted brain responses
to each type of stimulus.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 10

 Brain Fingerprinting

Table 1
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY
TYPES OF STIMULI AND PREDICTED BRAIN RESPONSES
Stimulus Relative Description Instructions Stimulus Predicted
Type Frequency Evaluation

Target 1/6 Relevant to Right Button Relevant, Rare

Task Press P300/MERMER

Irrelevant2/3 Irrelevant Left Button Irrelevant, Frequent No P300/MERMER

(frequent) Press

Probe 1/6 Relevant to Left Button If Information Absent: No P300/MERMER

Crime or Press Irrelevant, Frequent
Investigated (Treat Like (Indistinguishable
Situation Irrelevant Stimuli)from Irrelevant
Stimuli)

If Information Present:
Relevant, Rare P300/MERMER

3.2 Results of the FBI Agent Study

The results of the study of FBI agents were as predicted. In every case, FBI agents
showed large P300/MERMERs in response both to the targets and to the FBI-relevant
probes. The subjects who were not knowledgeable regarding the FBI showed large
P300/MERMERs only to the targets.

Bootstrapping analysis was conducted to make a determination of whether the subject

was knowledgeable regarding the FBI (an "information present" determination), or was
lacking in such knowledge. The Brain Fingerprinting system yielded a correct
determination in every case, both for the FBI agents and for the control group, along with
a statistical confidence for the determination. The determinations are summarized in
Table 2. The determinations and the statistical confidence for each are listed in Table 3.

As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, 100% of the determinations were correct. There were
no false positives, no false negatives, and no indeterminate.

Table 2

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 11

Brain Fingerprinting

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY:

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Subject State

Determination Information Information Total

Absent Present

Information Absent 4 0 4

Information Present 0 17 17

Indeterminate 0 0 0

Total 4 17 21

Predictive Values

Negative Positive

100% 100%

Validity (excluding inconclusives) 100%

Validity (including inconclusives) 100%

Table 3
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY:
DETERMINATIONS AND STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE
A. FBI Agents ("Information Present")
Subject Number Determination Statistical Confidence

1 Information Present 100

2 Information Present 100

3 Information Present 100

4 Information Present 100

5 Information Present 100

6 Information Present 92

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 12

Brain Fingerprinting

7 Information Present 100

8 Information Present 92

9 Information Present 100

10 Information Present 98

11 Information Present 98

12 Information Present 100

13 Information Present 97

14 Information Present 91

15 Information Present 100

16 Information Present 100

17 Information Present 100

B. Non-FBI Agents ("Information Absent")

Subject Number Determination Statistical Confidence

1 Information Absent 90

2 Information Absent 100

3 Information Absent 100

4 Information Absent 74

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 13

Brain Fingerprinting

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-year-old woman. Grinder had
admitted and denied the allegations 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.

4 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.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 14

Brain Fingerprinting

5 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.

6 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 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.

7 Applications

7.1 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.

4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 15

Brain Fingerprinting

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.

7.2 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 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.
7.3 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 accurate than other routinely
used tests, and could be commercially available in 18-24 months.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 16

Brain Fingerprinting

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.

7.4 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.

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.

References

1. ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell “Mind-
Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt -- Brain-Reading Technology Becomes New Tool in
Courts,” March 9, 2004
2. Abdollah, T. (2003). “Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes,” Berkeley Medical Journal
Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.
3. Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). “A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related
potentials in deception detection.”Psychophysiology 34:234-240.
4. CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10, 2000.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 17

Brain Fingerprinting

5. Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006). “Brain Fingerprinting in Laboratory

Conditions,” Psychophysiology, 43: S38.
6. Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (2001). “Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect
Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal.”Journal of Forensic Sciences 46,1:
135-143
7. Fox, C. (2006a) “Brain Fingerprinting National Security,” American Observer, March 29,
2006.
8. Fox, C. (2006b) “Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism” American Observer, March 29, 2006

Department of Computer Science & Engineering 18