BRAIN FINGER PRINTING TECHNOLOGY

A Technical Report
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION
ENGINEERING
By

M. POORNA CHANDER 19H61A04F6

Department of Electronics and Communication

Engineering
ANURAG GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
AUTONOMOUS
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
(Affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University,
Hyderabad)
Venkatapur(V), Ghatkesar(M), Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist-500088
2022-2023
 ANURAG GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
AUTONOMOUS
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
(Affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad
Venkatapur(V), Ghatkesar(M), Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist-500088

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION

ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the technical seminar report entitled (BRAIN
FINGER PRINT TECHNOLOGY) being submitted by
M. POORNA CHANDER 19H61A04F6

in partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of

Technology in Electronics & Communication Engineering to the
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad is a record of
bonafide work carried out under my guidance and supervision. The results
embodied in this project report have not been submitted to any other
University or Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

Mrs. Amrita Sajja Prof. N. Mangala Gouri

Assistant Professor Head of the Department
DEPT OF ECE

External Examiner
 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Report is an acknowledgement to the inspiration, drive and
technical assistance contributed by many individuals. This project would
have never seen light of this day without the help and guidance we have
received. We would like to express our gratitude to all the people behind
the screen who helped us to transform an idea into a real application.

It’s our privilege and pleasure to express our profound sense of

gratitude to name of Mrs. Amrita Sajja,Assistant Professor,Department
of ECE for his guidance throughout this Dissertation work.
We express our sincere gratitude to Prof. N. Mangala Gouri, Head
of Department, Electronics and Communication Engineering for his
precious suggestions for the successful completion of this project. He is
also a great source of inspiration to our work.
We would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to Dr.G.
Vishnu Murthy, Director, Anurag Group of Institutions for his
tremendous support, encouragement and inspiration. Lastly, we thank
almighty, our parents, friends for their constant encouragement without
which this assignment would not be possible. We would like to thank all
the other staff members, both teaching and non- teaching, which have
extended their timely help and eased my work.

BY
M. POORNA CHANDER 19H61A04F6
 ii
DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the result embodied in this technical seminar report
entitled“BRAIN FINGER PRINT TECHNOLOGY” is carried
out by us during the year 2021-2022 for the partial fulfilment of the award
of Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Communication
Engineering, from ANURAG GROUP OF INSTITUTION. We have not
submitted this project report to any other Universities / Institute for the
award of any degree.

BY

M. POORNA CHANDER 19H61A04F6

 iii
ABSTRACT
Brain fingerprinting (BF) detects concealed information stored in the brain by
measuring brainwaves. A specific EEG event-related potential, a P300-MERMER,
is elicited by stimuli that are significant in the present context. BF detects P300-
MERMER responses to words/pictures relevant to a crime scene, terrorist training,
bomb-making knowledge, etc. BF detects information by measuring cognitive
information processing. BF does not detect lies, stress, or emotion. BF computes a
determination of “information present” or “information absent” and a statistical
confidence for each individual determination. Laboratory and field tests at the FBI,
CIA, US Navy and elsewhere have resulted in 0% errors: no false positives and no
false negatives. 100% of determinations made were correct. 3% of results have
been “indeterminate.” BF has been applied in criminal cases and ruled admissible
in court. Scientific standards for BF tests are discussed. Meeting the BF scientific
standards is necessary for accuracy and validity.
 iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE Pg.no
Acknowledgment I
Declaration ii
Abstract iii
Table of content iv
List of figures v
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction 8
1.2 What is Brain Finger Printing 8
1.3 The Classification of CIT 8
1.4 Types of Stimuli 9
1.5 Procedure 9
1.6 Overview of Brain Finger Print 11
Science and Technology
2. Theory
2.1 Block Diagram 13
2.2 What is MERMER Brain Finger Print? 13
2.3 P300 MERMER 14
2.4 EEG Amplifier 14
2.5 How it works? 14

3. Conclusion and Future scope 15

3.1 Applications 15
3.2 Advantages 15
3.3 Disadvantages 15
3.4 Conclusion 15
3.5 Future Scope 15
7. References 16
 v
LIST OF FIGURES
NAME Pg.no

2.1 Block Diagram 13

2.5 How it Works 14
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Brain fingerprinting is an objective, scientific method to detect concealed information

stored in the brain by measuring electroencephalographic (EEG) brain responses, or
brainwaves, non-invasively by sensors placed on the scalp. The technique involves
presenting words, phrases, or pictures containing salient details about a crime or
investigated situation on a computer screen, in a series with other, irrelevant stimuli.
Brain responses to the stimuli are measured. When the brain processes information in
specific ways, characteristic brainwave patterns can be detected through computer
analysis of the brain responses. When an individual recognizes something as significant
in the current context, he experiences an “Aha!” response. This response is characterized
by a specific brainwave pattern known as a P300-MERMER. Brainwave responses are
analyzed to determine whether or not the specific information tested is stored in the brain
of the subject or not. Brain fingerprinting computes a determination of “information
present”—the subject knows the critical information, or “information absent”—he does
not. The system also computes a statistical confidence for each individual determination,
e.g., “information present, 99.9% confidence” indicates that there is a 99.9% probability
that the subject knows the relevant information tested. If the statistics computed do not
provide a statistical confidence high enough to meet a predetermined criterion for either
a determination of “information present” or “information absent,” then no determination
is made: the outcome is “indeterminate.”
1.2 What is Brain Finger Printing ?
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.
1.3 The classification of CIT
The concealed information test (CIT) or guilty knowledge test (GKT) has been used to
detect concealed information since Lykken (1959). Until the 1980s, the dependent
measures were autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses. The ANS-based CIT is a
8
comparison CIT (Lykken, 1959). The comparison CIT compares the responses to crime-

9
or situation-relevant and irrelevant items. If the responses to the relevant items are larger,
then the determination is made that the
subject knows the relevant information. (“Larger” is variously defined.) Otherwise, the
determination is made that the subject does not know the information. In classification of
CIT there are three types of stimuli present.
1.4 Types of stimuli
In the classification CIT, three types of stimuli are presented.
(1) “Probes” are relevant to the investigated situation. Probes contain information that
the subject has no way of knowing other than participation in the investigated situation
(and, in field cases, that the subject denies knowing or recognizing as being crime-
relevant).
(2) “Targets” also may be relevant to the investigated situation. (In all our recent
applications including the study reported here, they are.) Experimental protocols ensure
that the subject knows the targets, for reasons other than participation in the investigated
situation. The response to targets provides a template for the subject's response to
known, situation-relevant information.
(3) “Irrelevants” contain irrelevant information. The response to irrelevants provides a
template for the subject's response to irrelevant information.
1.5 Procedure
Before the test, we made certain that the subject understood the significance of the
probes. We described the significance of each probe to the subject. We then showed the
subject the probe and the corresponding irrelevants, in the context of the description of
the significance of the probe, without revealing which was the probe. Thus, subjects
were informed of the significance of each probe stimulus, but were not told which
stimulus was the probe and which were corresponding irrelevants. For example, subjects
were told, “One of these three items is the term for a medical technique applied to burn
victims in battlefield situations” followed by a list of one probe and two irrelevants (in
alphabetical order). Although the descriptions of the probes were made known to
subjects, the probe stimuli themselves were never identified as probes.
Targets were explicitly identified to the subjects. Experimental instructions ensured that
the subject knew the targets and their significance in the context of the investigated
situation. We described the significance of each target to the subject. We showed the

10
subject each target and the corresponding irrelevants, in the context of the description of

11
the significance of the target. We also showed subjects a list of the targets, and noted that
subjects would be required to recognize the targets during the test. We instructed
subjects to press a button with one thumb in response to targets, and another button with
the other thumb in response to “all other stimuli.” The subject's task was to read and
comprehend each stimulus, and then to indicate by a button press whether the stimulus
was a target stimulus or not.
For a subject possessing the knowledge embodied in the probes, “all other stimuli”
consisted of two types of stimuli: probes containing the known situation-relevant
information, and irrelevant stimuli. For a subject lacking the tested knowledge, “all other
stimuli” appeared equally irrelevant. Probes were indistinguishable from irrelevants. For
“all other stimuli” (that is, everything except targets), the subject was instructed to push
the opposite button from the one pushed in response to targets. This instruction applied
whether the subject perceived these as a single category (all equally irrelevant, if the
subject was information absent) or as two categories (irrelevant, and relevant to the
concealed information being tested, if the subject was information present).
The differential button-press task in response to every stimulus presentation ensured that
the subject was required to read and comprehend every stimulus, including the probe
stimuli, and to prove behaviorally that he had done so on every trial. This allowed us to
avoid depending on detecting brain responses to assigned tasks that the subject could
covertly avoid doing, while performing the necessary overt responses.
Testing was divided into separate blocks. In each block the computer display presented
72 stimulus presentations or trials. In blocks 1–3, four stimulus groups were presented in
each block, that is, in each block there were four unique probes, four unique targets, and
16 unique irrelevants. Each stimulus was presented three times in a block to make the
total of 72 stimulus presentations per block. Stimuli were presented in random order. In
blocks 4– 7, five stimulus groups were presented in each block in random order until 72
trials had been presented. (Since the total of 72 trials is not divisible by 5, some
randomly selected stimuli were presented 3 times and some 4.) In blocks 1–3, stimuli
were acronyms. In blocks 4–7, stimuli were words and phrases.
Immediately before each block, we repeated the description of the significance of each of
the probes and targets that were to appear in each block (but not the actual stimuli). For
example, “In this test you will see the term for a medical technique applied to burn

12
victims

13
in battlefield situations, a medical instrument applied in field wound treatments, a type of
injury sustained from exposure to chemical weapons, and the name of the individual who
developed the preferred treatment for exposure to sarin gas.”
Stimuli were presented for 300 ms at an ISI of 3000 ms. A fixation point (“X”) was
presented for 1000 ms prior to each stimulus. For each trial, the sequence was a fixation
point for 1000 ms, the stimulus (target, probe, or irrelevant) for 300 ms, a blank screen
for 1700 ms, and then the next fixation point.
Trials contaminated by artifacts generated by eye movements or muscle-generated noise
were rejected on-line, and additional trials were presented until 72 artifact-free trials
were obtained. Trials with a range of greater than 97.7 microvolts in the EOG channel
were rejected. Data for “rejected” trials were collected and recorded, but rejected trials
did not contribute to the count of trials presented, so each rejection resulted in an
additional stimulus presentation. In 7 blocks, a total of 84 probe, 84 target, and 336
irrelevant artifact- free trials were collected, for a grand total of 504 trials. (Previous
research, e.g., Fabiani et al., 1987 has shown that repeating the stimuli does not
substantially affect the relevant brain response.)
Brain responses were recorded from the midline frontal, central, and parietal scalp
locations (Fz, Cz, and Pz, International 10–20 system) referenced to linked mastoids, and
from a location on the forehead to track eye movements. Med Associates silver-silver
chloride disposable electrodes were held in place by a custom headband.
Data were digitized at 333 Hz, and resampled at 100 Hz off-line for analysis.
Electroencephalograph (EEG) data were amplified at a gain of 50,000 using custom
amplifiers. Electro-oculograph (EOG/eye movement) data were amplified at a gain of
10,000. Impedance did not exceed 10 kilohm. Analog filters passed signals between 0.1
and 30 Hz. Data were stored on disk for off-line analysis.

1.6 Overview of brain finger printing science and technology

In summary, the state of the art in investigations, forensic science, and criminal justice
has been a combination of two modes of establishing a connection between the crime
scene and the perpetrator:
1. Objective data collection and forensic science: establishing objective, scientific

connections between a few specific features of the crime scene and a few specific

14
features

15
of the perpetrator.
2. Interrogation and testimony: obtaining a subjective account of the contents of memory,

and attempting to determine whether or not the subject is lying.

What is generally the most comprehensive repository of information about the crime, the
record stored in the brains of participants, has not been available to scientific scrutiny or
objective investigation. There has been no objective, scientific way to detect the record
stored in the brain and thereby to connect the perpetrator with the crime.

16
 CHAPTER 2
THEORY

2.1 Block Diagram:

Fig2.1. Block diagram

 The subject wearing a special headband views stimuli consisting of words or pictures
presented on a computer screen.
 The subject’s brain emits the P300-MERMER pulse which is received by a special
headband.
 This headband measures the EEG response from several locations on the scalp.

 EEG signal received is very small in millivolts and thus is amplified.

 Data Acquisition Board (DAQ) is used for converting this signal into digital.
 Brain Fingerprinting software is used for display of stimuli and analysis of EEG data
collected

2.2 What is MERMER Brain Fingerprinting?

Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response

(MERMER) is a brain response derived from the EEG data at different sites. The main

17
component of a MERMER is the P300 brainwave, an evoked response that has been well
studied in the scientific literature as a potential indicator of recognition.
Brain Fingerprinting 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, it is insignificant and not noteworthy, and the MERMER response is
absent. The MERMER occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation, and
can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection
algorithm.

2.3 P300 MERMER

The P300 epoch was defined as the epoch between 300 and 900 ms where the target
response was more positive than the irrelevant response. The P300-MERMER epoch was
defined as the P300 epoch followed by the epoch where the target response was more
negative (or less positive) than the irrelevant response.

2.4 EEG AMPLIFIER

The EEG amplifier is the part of the data acquisition system responsible for
accommodating, amplifying and converting the analog electrical signals from the sensor
into a digital signal that can be processed by the computer.

2.5 How it works?

A Suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information represented by Different

colored lines:
-----Red (Target Stimuli): information the suspect is expected to know
-----Green (irrelevant stimuli): information not known to suspect
-----Blue (probe stimuli): information of the crime that only perpetrator would know

Fig.2.5 How it Works

18
 CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSION AND FUTURESCOPE

3.1 Applications

• Criminal justice: to determine who has committed a crime.

• Medical: Used in identifying and curing Alzheimer's disease.
• In determining who participated in terrorist acts.

3.2 Advantages

 It has a record of 100% accuracy.

 There is no chance of getting false information.
 Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.

3.3 Disadvantages

 Detects only information, and not intent.

 Not applicable for general screening.
 Does not detect lies. It simply detects information.

3.4 Conclusion

The technology of Brain Fingerprinting has proved quite useful in solving crimes and
absolve the ones who are not guilty.
It not only has a major hand in crime detection, but it also plays a role in different
applications
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.

3.5 Future Scope

Brain Fingerprinting technology has gained recognition and sparked the interest of
government security agencies worldwide.
Thus, the Brain Fingerprinting Technology will pave a path for a new scientific method
in the field of Investigative Psychology.

19
 REFERENCES

[1] Allen, J., and Iacono, W. G. (1997). A comparison of methods for the analysis of
event- related potentials in deception detection. Psychophysiology 34, 234–240. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02137.x

[2] https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Brain-Fingerprinting.pdf

[3] https://academicjournals.org/article/article1379429699_Ahuja%20and%20Singh.pdf

[4] http://www.ejournal.aessangli.in/ASEEJournals/EC200.pdf

[5]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357927867_A_SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_ON
_EXPERIENTIAL_KNOWLEDGE_OF_WITNESSES_USING_BEOS_PROFILING

20
21