Noninvasive invasion
Feb. 11th, 2003 05:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheNew 'Brain Fingerprinting' Could Help Solve Crimes
A technique called "brain fingerprinting," which seeks to probe whether a suspect has specific knowledge of a crime, could become a powerful weapon in national security, its inventor believes.
[...] Brain fingerprinting works by measuring and analyzing split-second spikes in electrical activity in the brain when it responds to something it recognizes.
For example, if a suspected murderer was shown a detail of the crime scene that only he would know, his brain would involuntarily register that knowledge. Under Farwell's system, that brain activity is picked up through electrodes attached to the suspect's scalp and measured by an electroencephalograph (EEG) as a waveform.
A person who had never seen that crime scene would show no reaction.
Many scientists have studied the initial spike in brain activity, known as the p300, that peaks at between 300 and 500 milliseconds in response to a stimulus. Farwell's contribution was to develop something he calls the MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response) that measures the pattern of brain response up to 1,200 milliseconds after the stimulus has been administered.
In 1999, Farwell used his technique to solve a 1984 murder in Missouri. Police strongly suspected a local woodcutter, James Grinder, of kidnapping, raping and murdering Julie Helton, a 25 year-old woman, but had lacked the evidence to convict him. He agreed to undergo brain fingerprinting to demonstrate his innocence.
Farwell flashed on a computer screen details of the crime that only the murderer would have known, including items taken from the victim, where the victim's body was located, items left at the crime scene and details of the wounds on the body of the victim.
"What his brain said was that he was guilty," he said. "He had critical, detailed information only the killer would have. The murder of Julie Helton was stored in his brain, and had been stored there 15 years ago when he committed the murder."
Grinder pleaded guilty a week later in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, avoiding the death penalty. He also confessed to three other murders of young women.
[...] However, just like lie detector tests, the technique requires the cooperation of the subject. A suspect could simply refuse to cooperate by closing his eyes and refusing to watch the prompts flashed on the screen before him.
[...] Independent scientists contacted by the GAO investigators raised various objections to brain fingerprinting and said it needed more work into issues such as how memory was affected by drugs and alcohol, mental illness and extreme anxiety during crime situations.
Still, William Iacono, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, said he was confident that brain fingerprinting would eventually establish itself for many applications, including the investigation of carefully planned premeditated crimes.
A technique called "brain fingerprinting," which seeks to probe whether a suspect has specific knowledge of a crime, could become a powerful weapon in national security, its inventor believes.
[...] Brain fingerprinting works by measuring and analyzing split-second spikes in electrical activity in the brain when it responds to something it recognizes.
For example, if a suspected murderer was shown a detail of the crime scene that only he would know, his brain would involuntarily register that knowledge. Under Farwell's system, that brain activity is picked up through electrodes attached to the suspect's scalp and measured by an electroencephalograph (EEG) as a waveform.
A person who had never seen that crime scene would show no reaction.
Many scientists have studied the initial spike in brain activity, known as the p300, that peaks at between 300 and 500 milliseconds in response to a stimulus. Farwell's contribution was to develop something he calls the MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response) that measures the pattern of brain response up to 1,200 milliseconds after the stimulus has been administered.
In 1999, Farwell used his technique to solve a 1984 murder in Missouri. Police strongly suspected a local woodcutter, James Grinder, of kidnapping, raping and murdering Julie Helton, a 25 year-old woman, but had lacked the evidence to convict him. He agreed to undergo brain fingerprinting to demonstrate his innocence.
Farwell flashed on a computer screen details of the crime that only the murderer would have known, including items taken from the victim, where the victim's body was located, items left at the crime scene and details of the wounds on the body of the victim.
"What his brain said was that he was guilty," he said. "He had critical, detailed information only the killer would have. The murder of Julie Helton was stored in his brain, and had been stored there 15 years ago when he committed the murder."
Grinder pleaded guilty a week later in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, avoiding the death penalty. He also confessed to three other murders of young women.
[...] However, just like lie detector tests, the technique requires the cooperation of the subject. A suspect could simply refuse to cooperate by closing his eyes and refusing to watch the prompts flashed on the screen before him.
[...] Independent scientists contacted by the GAO investigators raised various objections to brain fingerprinting and said it needed more work into issues such as how memory was affected by drugs and alcohol, mental illness and extreme anxiety during crime situations.
Still, William Iacono, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, said he was confident that brain fingerprinting would eventually establish itself for many applications, including the investigation of carefully planned premeditated crimes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-02-11 05:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-02-12 03:13 am (UTC)