Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information

Abstract

Brain fingerprinting detects concealed information stored in the brain by measuring brainwave responses. We compared P300 and P300-MERMER event-related brain potentials for error rate/accuracy and statistical confidence in four field/real-life studies. 76 tests detected presence or absence of information regarding (1) real-life events including felony crimes; (2) real crimes with substantial consequences (either a judicial outcome, i.e., evidence admitted in court, or a $100,000 reward for beating the test); (3) knowledge unique to FBI agents; and (4) knowledge unique to explosives (EOD/IED) experts. With both P300 and P300-MERMER, error rate was 0 %: determinations were 100 % accurate, no false negatives or false positives; also no indeterminates. Countermeasures had no effect. Median statistical confidence for determinations was 99.9 % with P300-MERMER and 99.6 % with P300. Brain fingerprinting methods and scientific standards for laboratory and field applications are discussed. Major differences in methods that produce different results are identified. Markedly different methods in other studies have produced over 10 times higher error rates and markedly lower statistical confidences than those of these, our previous studies, and independent replications. Data support the hypothesis that accuracy, reliability, and validity depend on following the brain fingerprinting scientific standards outlined herein.

Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials

“…Both analyses resulted in the same correct determinations. The analysis using the P300-MERMER produced a somewhat higher statistical confidence for some of the determinations than the analysis using only the P300 (Farwell et al 2011).…”

“…Farwell conducted FBI Experiment 1, the ''FBI agent study,'' (Farwell and Richardson 2006a;Farwell et al 2011) with Drew Richardson, then a scientist at the FBI Laboratory. Brain fingerprinting produced 100% accurate results in detecting FBI-relevant knowledge in 17 FBI agents and lack of this knowledge in four non-FBI agents.…”

“…Farwell and colleagues' studies at the CIA and the US Navy (Farwell and Richardson 2006a, b;Farwell et al 2011) showed that brain fingerprinting could accurately and reliably detect individuals possessing information regarding both mock crimes and real-life activities, including some actual major crimes.…”

“…Sixteen subjects were correctly classified as ''information present,'' and 14 subjects were correctly classified as ''information absent. '' In CIA Experiment 3, the ''real-life CIA study, '' (Farwell and Richardson 2006b;Farwell et al 2011) the information detected was relevant to real-life events, including a number of felony crimes. This study used visually presented words and phrases as stimuli.…”

The Ethical Implications of Considering Neurolaw as a New Power

“…Brain Fingerprinting, as L. Farwell stablished (Farwell, 2011;Farwell et al, 2013), mathematically analyses brainwaves produced in response to a stimulus, thus determining whether this information is present or absent in the brain's memory. Brain fingerprinting, as well as regular fingerprinting used in the biological analysis of crime scene DNA, in this case compares information stored in the brain with information from the crime scene.…”