Literature DB >> 11210899

Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal.

L A Farwell1, S S Smith.   

Abstract

This experiment examined the accuracy and reliability of the memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) technique for detecting information related to events subjects have experienced, despite subjects' efforts to conceal that knowledge. Information obtained through interviews was used to develop stimulus sets consisting of words and phrases presented to subjects visually by computer. Sets were composed of three types of stimuli: life experience-related (Probes), stimuli the subject was asked to memorize and respond to (Targets), and irrelevant information (Irrelevants). Each set of stimuli was tested on two individuals: (1) one individual who had participated in the event in question--and thus had the relevant information stored in his/her brain, and (2) one who had not. Six subjects were tested. Electrical brain responses to the stimuli were recorded non-invasively from the scalp and analyzed. MERMERs, (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic responses), of which the P300 is a sub-component, were used to determine whether the subject had the relevant information stored in his brain (information present) or not (information absent), thus indicating whether or not each subject had participated in the real-life event in question. Bootstrapping was used to analyze and compare the responses to the three types of stimuli. As predicted, MERMERs were elicited by Probe stimuli only in the subjects who had participated in the investigated event, by Target stimuli in all subjects, and in no case by Irrelevant stimuli. For each of the six subjects, brain MERMER testing correctly determined whether the subject had participated in and consequently knew about the event in question (information present) or had not participated (information absent). The statistical confidence for this determination was 99.9% in five cases and 90.0% in one case. The article concludes with a discussion of areas of future research and the potential for using this new technology as an investigative tool in criminal cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11210899

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  17 in total

1.  Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Eric Racine
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  Brain Imaging: A Decade of Coverage in the Print Media.

Authors:  Eric Racine; Ofek Bar-Ilan; Judy Illes
Journal:  Sci Commun       Date:  2006-09

3.  Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information.

Authors:  Matthias Gamer; Thomas Bauermann; Peter Stoeter; Gerhard Vossel
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  [Forensic psychiatry in the era of neuroscience: present status and outlook for neurobiological research].

Authors:  J L Müller
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.214

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

Authors:  Lawrence A Farwell
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges.

Authors:  Martha J Farah; J Benjamin Hutchinson; Elizabeth A Phelps; Anthony D Wagner
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 34.870

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

Authors:  Lawrence A Farwell; Drew C Richardson; Graham M Richardson
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 5.082

8.  fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects.

Authors:  Matthias Gamer; Olga Klimecki; Thomas Bauermann; Peter Stoeter; Gerhard Vossel
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  A comment on Farwell (2012): brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials.

Authors:  Ewout H Meijer; Gershon Ben-Shakhar; Bruno Verschuere; Emanuel Donchin
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Brain fingerprinting: let's focus on the science-a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin.

Authors:  Lawrence A Farwell; Drew C Richardson
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 5.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.