Journal of Engineering and Technology Research Vol. 4(6), pp.

98-103, November 2012

Available online at http:// www.academicjournals.org/JETR
DOI: 10.5897/JETR11.061
ISSN 2006-9790 2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Brain fingerprinting
Dhiraj Ahuja* and Bharat Singh
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, YMCA University of Science and Technology, Faridabad-121006
(Haryana), India.
Accepted 9 January, 2012

Brain finger printing 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. In the
field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America called brain
finger printing. 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.
Keywords: Polygraph, electroencephalography, Farwell brain fingerprinting, electroencephalography (EEG)
signals.
INTRODUCTION
Brain fingerprinting is an investigative technique which
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. Its
theory explains 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 (Farwell and Donchin,
1991). Farwells brain fingerprinting originally used the
well known P300 brain response to detect the brains
recognition of the known information (Farwell and
Donchin, 1986, 1991; Farwell 1995a). Later Farwell
discovered the "memory and encoding related
multifaceted
electroencephalographic
response"
(MERMER), which includes the P300 and additional
features and is reported to provide a higher level of
accuracy than the P300 alone (Farwell and Smith, 2001;
Farwell, 1994, 1995b). One of the applications is lie
detection. Farwell brain fingerprinting has been proven

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel:

919255947380, 918901584248.

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. In peer-reviewed publications Farwell and
colleagues report over 99% accuracy in laboratory
research (Farwell and Donchin, 1991; Farwell and
Richardson, 2006b) and real-life field applications
(Farwell and Smith, 2001; Farwell and Richardson,
2006a). In independent research William Iacono and
others who followed identical or similar scientific
protocols to Farwells have reported a similar high level of
accuracy (Allen and Lacono, 1997).
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 (for example, palm
sweating and heart rate), while brain fingerprinting
measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband

Ahuja and Singh

Figure 1. Person being tested wearing a special headband

with electronic sensors.

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 and
has been criticized on a number of fronts (Abdollah,
2003; Fox 2006b). Although independent scientists who
have used the same or similar methods as Farwells brain
fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate
results (Allen and Lacono, 1997; Harrington v. State),
different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter
Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating
fundamentally different methods, resulting in as low as
chance accuracy (Rosenfeld et al., 2004) as well as
susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain
fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings
of his alternative technique should generalize to all other
techniques in which the P300 is among the brain
responses measured, including brain fingerprinting.
OPERATION OF THE TECHNIQUE
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic
sensors that measure the electroencephalography from several
locations on the scalp (Figure 1). 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 tester 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 ms after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance,
for example, a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject
is asked to count (Gaillard and Ritter, 1983; Picton, 1988). The
novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as
response to stimuli related to the crime in question for example a
murder weapon or a victim's face (Figures 2 and 3).

99

Figure 2. Victims facial expression.

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 and do not
depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by
emotional responses (Farwell, 1994). Brain fingerprinting is
fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which
measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate,
sweating, and blood pressure (Farwell and Smith , 2001; Farwell
1992a, 1995a). Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to
determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth.
Rather, it measures the subjects brain response to relevant words,
phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant
information is stored in the subjects brain (Farwell and Smith,
2001; Simon, 2005; Harrington v. State).

Four phases of Farwell brain fingerprinting

In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence is 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 (that is, in the brain as revealed
by electrical brain responses) is informational evidence rather than
physical 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 detail 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

100

J. Eng. Technol. Res

Figure 3. Victim's stimulus.

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 (Figure 4).

APPLICATIONS
Counter terrorism
Brain fingerprinting can help in addressing 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.
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 (Figure 3). 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 this technology,
now, terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be
identified quickly and accurately.
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. In a
study with the FBI, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew
Richardson, former chief of the FBIs chem-bio-nuclear
counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprinting to show
that test subjects from specific groups could be identified
by detecting specific knowledge which would only be
known to members of those groups (Farwell, 1993;
Farwell and Richardson, 2006b). A group of 17 FBI
agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli (words,
phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer
screen. The probe stimuli contained information that
would be common knowledge only to someone with FBI
training. Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the
FBI agents from the non-agents.
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 Finger printing testing,
there was no scientifically valid way to detect this
fundamental difference. 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. Brain Fingerprinting testing was
also instrumental in obtaining a confession and guilty
plea from serial killer James B. Grinder, according to
Sheriff Robert Dawson of Macon County, Missouri. In
August 1999, Dr. Farwell conducted a brain fingerprinting
test on Grinder, showing that information stored in his
brain matched the details of the murder of Julie Helton

Ahuja and Singh

101

Figure 4. Use of Brain waves to detect guilt.

(Dalbey, 1999). Faced with a certain conviction and

almost certain death sentence, Grinder then pled guilty to
the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a life
sentence without parole. He is currently serving that
sentence and has also confessed to the murders of three
other women.

(Farwell and Richardson, 2006b) used brain fingerprinting

to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical
training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to
have or not to have the specific information regarding
military medicine stored in their brains.
Additional applications

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. A 30 min 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.
In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and colleagues

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 be helpful to reduce the

102

J. Eng. Technol. Res

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. In a CIA-funded study, brain fingerprinting
correctly detected which individuals had participated in
specific real-life events, some of which were crimes,
based on the record stored in their brains. Accuracy
again was 100% (Farwell and Richardson, 2006a). Dr.
Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a
further study in which brain fingerprinting detected reallife events that was published in the Journal of Forensic
Sciences (Farwell and Smith, 2001).
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.
Admissibility of brain fingerprinting in court
The admissibility of brain fingerprinting in court has not
yet been fully 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. There
are examples where court has considered the brain finger
printing reports. Farwells brain fingerprinting has been
ruled admissible as evidence in court in the reversal of
the murder conviction of Terry Harrington (Harrington v.
State, Farwell and Makeig, 2005). Following a hearing on
post-conviction relief on November 14, 2000, an Iowa
District Court held that Dr. Farwells brain fingerprinting

P-300 test results were admissible as scientific evidence

as defined in Congress Ruling 702 and in the Daubert
standard. Harrington was freed by the Iowa Supreme
Court on constitutional grounds.
LIMITATIONS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
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, be it a witness or a perpetrator.
2. Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and not
intent. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested
facts of the circumstance does not tell us which partys
version of the intent is correct (Simon, 2005).
3. Brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general
screening, for example, in general pre-employment or
employee screening wherein any number of undesirable
activities or intentions may be relevant. If the
investigators have no idea what crime or undesirable act
the individual may have committed, there is no way to
structure appropriate stimuli to detect the telltale
knowledge that would result from committing the crime.
Brain fingerprinting can, however, be used for specific
screening or focused screening, when investigators have
some idea what they are looking for. For example, brain
fingerprinting can be used to detect whether a person has
knowledge that would identify him as an FBI agent, an AlQaeda-trained terrorist, a member of a criminal
organization or terrorist cell, or a bomb maker (Farwell
and Richardson, 2006b).
4. Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply
detects information. No questions are asked or answered
during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies
nor tells the truth during a brain fingerprinting test, and
the outcome of the test is unaffected by whether he has
lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of
information present or information absent depends on
whether the relevant information is stored in the brain,
and not on what the subject says about it (Farwell, 1994;
Simon, 2005; PBS 2004).
5. Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory
of the witness, brain fingerprinting depends on the
memory of the subject.
6. Like all forensic science techniques, brain
fingerprinting depends on the evidence-gathering process
which lies outside the realm of science to provide the
evidence to be scientifically tested. A DNA test
determines only whether two DNA samples match, it
does not determine whether the investigator did an
effective job of collecting DNA from the crime scene.
Similarly, a brain fingerprinting test determines only
whether or not the information stored in the suspect's
brain matches the information contained in the probe
stimuli.
7. Brain fingerprinting is not a substitute for effective

Ahuja and Singh

investigation on the part of the investigator or for common

sense and good judgment on the part of the judge and
jury (PBS 2004).
REFERENCES
AbdollahT (2003). Brain Fingerprinting Picture-perfect crimes.
Berkeley Med. J. Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.
Allen JJB, Lacono WG (1997). A comparison of methods for the
analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection.
Psychophysiol., 34: 234-240.
Dalbey B (1999). Brain Fingerprinting Testing Traps Serial Killer in
Missouri. The Fairfield Ledger. Fairfield, IA, August, p. 1.
Farwell LA, Donchin E (1986). The brain detector: P300 in the detection
of deception. Psychophysiology, 24: 434.
Farwell LA, Donchin E (1991). The Truth Will Out: Interrogative
Polygraphy ("Lie Detection") With Event-Related Brain Potentials.
Psychophysiol., 28: 531-547.
Farwell LA (1992a). The brain-wave information detection (BID) system:
A new paradigm for psycho physiological detection of information
(unpublished doctoral dissertation). Urbana-Champaign (IL):
University of Illinois.
Farwell LA (1993). Brain MERMERs: Detection of FBI Agents and
crime-relevant information with the Farwell MERA system.
Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium,
Washington, D.C.
Farwell LA (1994). Method and Apparatus for Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response Analysis (MERA). U.S. Patent
#5,363,858, Nov. 15.

103

Farwell LA (1995a). Method and Apparatus for Truth Detection. U.S.

Patent #5,406,956, April 18.
Farwell LA (1995b). Method for Electroencephalographic Information
Detection. U.S. Patent #5,467,777, Nov. 21.
Farwell LA, Smith SS (2001). Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect
Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal. J. Forens. Sci.,
46(1): 135-143.
Farwell LA, Makeig T (2005). Farwell Brain Fingerprinting in the case of
Harrington v. State. Open Court X, 3: 7-10. Indiana State Bar
Association.
Farwell LA, Richardson DC (2006a). Brain Fingerprinting in Field
onditions. Psychophysiology, 43: 5 S37-S38.
Farwell LA, Richardson DC (2006b). Brain Fingerprinting in Laboratory
Conditions. Psychophysiol., 43: S38.
Fox C (2006b). Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism. American Observer,
March 29.
Gaillard AKW, Ritter W (1983). Tutorials in event-related potential
research: endogenous components. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for
Pottawattamie County, March 5, 2001.
PBS Innovation Series (2004). Brain Fingerprinting May 4, 2004. Brain
Fingerprinting: Ask the Experts. Accessed July 20, 2008.
Picton TW (1988). Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical
neurophysiology: Human event-related potentials. 3: Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Rosenfeld JP, Soskins M, Bosh G, Ryan A (2004). Simple, Effective
Counter measures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed
Information. Psychophysiol., 41: 205219.
Simon S (2005). What you dont know cant hurt you. Law Enforcement
Technology, Sept., 2005.