Brain fingerprinting

{{Short description|Forensic science technique using EEG to detect concealed information}} {{About|the forensic EEG-based technique|the use of functional connectivity to identify individuals|Functional connectivity}}

'''Brain fingerprinting''' ('''BF''') is a '''forensic science''' technique that uses electroencephalography (EEG)–measured event-related brain potentials to assess whether specific information is stored in a person's memory.<ref name=FD1991>{{cite journal |last1=Farwell |first1=Lawrence A. |last2=Donchin |first2=Emanuel |year=1991 |title=The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy ("Lie Detection") with Event-Related Brain Potentials |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=531–547 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x |pmid=1758929 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The approach was first published in 1991 by Farwell and Donchin and later described by Farwell in a forensic science encyclopedia entry.<ref name=FD1991/><ref name=Wiley2014>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Farwell |first=Lawrence A. |title=Brain Fingerprinting: Detection of Concealed Information |encyclopedia=Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science |editor-last=Jamieson |editor-first=Allan |editor2-last=Moenssens |editor2-first=Andre A. |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |doi=10.1002/9780470061589.fsa1013 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa1013 |date=16 June 2014 |pages=1–12 |isbn=978-0-470-01826-2 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> In a typical test, words or images that contain crime-relevant details are interleaved with neutral items; recognition-related brain responses are compared across item types to infer whether the examinee possesses knowledge of those details.<ref name=Farwell2012>{{cite journal |last=Farwell |first=Lawrence A. |year=2012 |title=Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials |journal=Cognitive Neurodynamics |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=115–154 |pmid=23542949 |pmc=3311838 |doi=10.1007/s11571-012-9192-2}}</ref>

Courts in the United States have addressed the admissibility of BF evidence. In ''Harrington v. State'' (Iowa), the district court ruled the results admissible, and the Iowa Supreme Court later discussed the evidence in the appeal.<ref name=Harr2001>{{cite court |litigants=Harrington v. State |court=Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County |date=2001-03-05 |quote=Case No. PCCV 073247 }}</ref><ref name=Harr2003>{{cite court |litigants=Harrington v. State |vol=659 |reporter=N.W.2d |opinion=509 |court=Iowa |date=2003 }}</ref> Legal commentators have analyzed BF's evidentiary status and implications.<ref name=Moenssens2002>{{cite journal |last=Moenssens |first=Andre A. |year=2002 |title=Brain Fingerprinting: Can It Be Used to Detect the Innocence of Persons Charged with a Crime? |journal=UMKC Law Review |volume=70 |pages=891–920}}</ref><ref name=Erickson2007>{{cite journal |last=Erickson |first=Megan J. |year=2007 |title=Daubert's Bipolar Treatment of Scientific Expert Testimony—From Frye's Polygraph to Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting |journal=Drake Law Review |volume=55 |pages=763–812}}</ref><ref name=Roberts2007>{{cite journal |last=Roberts |first=A. J. |year=2007 |title=Everything New Is Old Again: Brain Fingerprinting and Evidentiary Analogy |journal=Yale Journal of Law & Technology |volume=9 |pages=234–270}}</ref><ref name=Iacono2008>{{cite journal |last=Iacono |first=William G. |year=2008 |title=The Forensic Application of "Brain Fingerprinting:" Why Scientists Should Encourage the Use of P300 Memory Detection Methods |journal=The American Journal of Bioethics |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=30–32 |doi=10.1080/15265160701828550 |pmid=18236333}}</ref>

== Method and P300 response == Brain fingerprinting uses EEG electrodes placed on the scalp to record event-related potentials (ERPs) while the subject views probe (crime-relevant) and irrelevant stimuli.<ref name=Farwell2012/> A positive-going ERP component peaking roughly 300–800 ms after stimulus onset—the P300—has been studied since the 1960s as an index of context updating and recognition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sutton |first1=Samuel |last2=Braren |first2=Margery |last3=Zubin |first3=Joseph |last4=John |first4=E. R. |year=1965 |title=Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty |journal=Science |volume=150 |issue=3700 |pages=1187–1188 |doi=10.1126/science.150.3700.1187 |pmid=5852977 |bibcode=1965Sci...150.1187S }}</ref> The recognition-related response is used to ''detect'' whether information is present in memory; it is not itself a determination of guilt or innocence.<ref name=Roberts2007/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mertens |first1=R. |last2=Allen |first2=J. J. B. |year=2008 |title=The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock-crime scenarios |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=286–298 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x |pmid=17995914 }}</ref><ref name=Farwell2012/>

Unlike a traditional polygraph examination—which relies largely on autonomic measures such as electrodermal and cardiovascular activity—BF focuses on neural responses to recognition probes.<ref name=Erickson2007/> Research on the related concealed information test has examined both autonomic and ERP measures across numerous laboratory studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Meijer |first1=Ewout H. |last2=Selle |first2=Nathalie Klein |last3=Elber |first3=Lotem |last4=Ben-Shakhar |first4=Gershon |year=2014 |title=Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: A meta-analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=51 |issue=9 |pages=879–904 |pmid=24916920 |doi=10.1111/psyp.12239}}</ref>

== History == Farwell and Donchin's 1991 paper proposed using ERPs for concealed-information detection and reported initial laboratory evidence.<ref name=FD1991/> In 1999, BF was reported in connection with the investigation of the 1984 murder of Julie Helton in Missouri involving James B. Grinder; coverage described the use of ERPs during the investigation and Grinder's subsequent confession and imprisonment.<ref name=Abdollah2003>{{cite news |last=Abdollah |first=Tami |title=Brain Fingerprinting: Picture-perfect crimes |work=Berkeley Medical Journal “Issues” |date=Spring 2003 |url=http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spring03/brainfinger.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060722001256/http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spring03/brainfinger.html |archive-date=2006-07-22 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=Dale2001>{{cite magazine |last=Dale |first=Sarah S. |title=The Brain Scientist: Climbing Inside the Criminal Mind |magazine=Time |date=26 November 2001 |pages=80–81 |url=https://time.com/archive/6665314/climbing-inside-the-criminal-mind-the-brain-scientist/ |access-date=23 November 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) surveyed federal agencies and reported skepticism about prospective operational use, citing limited applicability to federal missions.<ref name=GAO2001>{{cite report |title=Investigative Techniques: Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of "Brain Fingerprinting" |publisher=United States General Accounting Office |date=2001 |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-22.pdf}}</ref> Academic and legal commentary continued in the early 2000s, including discussions of potential uses and constraints in criminal procedure.<ref name=Moenssens2002/>

Reports and commentary have noted investigations and demonstrations outside the United States, including in India and New Zealand, though BF has not achieved widespread courtroom use internationally.<ref name=GAO2001/><ref name=Roberts2007/><ref name=Palmer2017>{{cite journal |last=Palmer |first=Robin |year=2017 |title=Time to Take Brain-Fingerprinting Seriously? A Consideration of International Developments in Forensic Brainwave Analysis (FBA) |journal=Te Wharenga – New Zealand Criminal Law Review |volume=6 |pages=330–356 |url=https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/7d533177-8f4e-44c0-8397-2fafd4d23fcc/content |hdl=10092/101246}}</ref>

== Legal status == In the United States, BF evidence was ruled admissible by an Iowa district court in ''Harrington v. State''; subsequent appellate proceedings in 2003 addressed the case and the evidentiary record.<ref name=Harr2001/><ref name=Harr2003/> Law reviews discuss BF under ''Daubert'' and related evidentiary frameworks, comparing it with polygraph and other scientific testimony.<ref name=Moenssens2002/><ref name=Erickson2007/><ref name=Roberts2007/><ref name=Iacono2008/>

== Criticism and debate == Scholars have raised methodological and interpretive concerns about BF and related ERP-based memory detection, including stimulus selection, countermeasures, and generalization from laboratory paradigms.<ref name=Meijer2013>{{cite journal |last1=Meijer |first1=Ewout |last2=Ben-Shakhar |first2=Gershon |last3=Verschuere |first3=Bruno |last4=Donchin |first4=Emanuel |year=2013 |title=A comment on Farwell (2012): brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials |journal=Cognitive Neurodynamics |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=155–158 |pmid=23493984 |pmc=3595430 |doi=10.1007/s11571-012-9217-x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Meegan |first=Daniel V. |year=2008 |title=Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues |journal=The American Journal of Bioethics |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=9–20 |doi=10.1080/15265160701842007 |pmid=18236327}}</ref> Farwell and colleagues have replied, emphasizing published accuracy claims and test protocols.<ref name=FarwellReply>{{cite journal |last1=Farwell |first1=Lawrence A. |last2=Richardson |first2=Drew C. |year=2013 |title=Brain fingerprinting: let's focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin |journal=Cognitive Neurodynamics |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=159–166 |doi=10.1007/s11571-012-9238-5 |pmid=23494087 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11571-012-9238-5|pmc=3595431 }}</ref>

Published laboratory and field reports using BF-style ERP measures include claims of high accuracy and low error rates;<ref name=AllenIacono1997>{{cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=J. J. B. |last2=Iacono |first2=William G. |year=1997 |title=A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=234–240 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02137.x |pmid=9090275 }}</ref><ref name=Farwell2013>{{cite journal |last1=Farwell |first1=Lawrence A. |last2=Richardson |first2=Drew C. |last3=Richardson |first3=Graham M. |year=2013 |title=Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information |journal=Cognitive Neurodynamics |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=263–299 |doi=10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0 |pmid=23869200 |pmc=3713201 }}</ref><ref name=Wiley2014/><ref name=Farwell2022>{{cite journal |last1=Farwell |first1=Lawrence A. |last2=Richardson |first2=Drew C. |title=Brain fingerprinting field study on major terrorist crimes supports the brain fingerprinting scientific standards hypothesis: classification concealed information test with P300 and P300-MERMER succeeds; comparison CIT fails |journal=Cognitive Neurodynamics |date=1 March 2022 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=63–104 |doi=10.1007/s11571-022-09795-1 |pmid=36704633 |pmc=9871152 |url=https://farwellbrainfingerprinting.com/pdf/Ex/Farwell_Richardson_2022_Brain_Fingerprinting_on_Major_Terrorist_Crimes_Cognitive_Neurodynamics.pdf}}</ref> assessments by other researchers have urged caution and further independent validation before routine forensic adoption.<ref name=Iacono2008/><ref name=Meijer2013/>

== Current research and related uses == Two pilot studies and legal analyses in New Zealand have evaluated "forensic brainwave analysis", a family of ERP-based approaches that includes BF, and called for further research on foundational validity and reliability.<ref name=Palmer2017/> BF and ERP-based concealed-information tests have also been discussed in broader reviews of forensic psychophysiology.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mertens |first1=R. |last2=Allen |first2=J. J. B. |year=2008 |title=The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock-crime scenarios |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=286–298 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x |pmid=17995914 }}</ref> The technique has received periodic media coverage.<ref name=Dale2001/><ref name=Abdollah2003/>

Outside the forensic context, the term "brain fingerprinting" has also been used in cognitive neuroscience to describe functional connectome fingerprinting, which identifies individuals using patterns of resting-state or task-based brain connectivity;<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Finn |first1=Emily S. |last2=Shen |first2=Xilin |last3=Scheinost |first3=Dustin |last4=Rosenberg |first4=Monica D. |last5=Huang |first5=Jessica |last6=Chun |first6=Marvin M. |last7=Papademetris |first7=Xenophon |last8=Constable |first8=R. Todd |year=2015 |title=Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity |journal=Nature Neuroscience |volume=18 |issue=11 |pages=1664–1671 |doi=10.1038/nn.4135 |pmid=26457551 |pmc=5008686}}</ref> some authors have proposed future clinical applications of such connectivity-based individual identification.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hermens |first1=Daniel F. |last2=Russo |first2=Colin |last3=Shan |first3=Zack |last4=Lagopoulos |first4=Jim |year=2023 |title=Brain fingerprinting: A promising future application for predicting mental illness |journal=Futures |volume=152 |article-number=103211 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2023.103211}}</ref>

== See also == * Forensic science

== References == {{Reflist}}

== Further reading == * {{cite book |last1=Druckman |first1=Daniel |last2=Lacey |first2=J. I. |year=1989 |title=Brain and Cognition: Some New Technologies |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=National Academy Press}} * {{cite book |last=Picton |first=T. W. |year=1988 |title=Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology: Human Event-Related Potentials, Vol. 3 |location=Amsterdam |publisher=Elsevier}} * {{cite book |last1=Gaillard |first1=A. K. W. |last2=Ritter |first2=W. |year=1983 |title=Tutorials in Event-Related Potential Research: Endogenous Components |location=Amsterdam |publisher=North-Holland}} * {{cite journal |last1=Farwell |first1=Lawrence A. |last2=Richardson |first2=Drew C. |last3=Richardson |first3=Graham M. |last4=Furedy |first4=John J. |year=2014 |title=Brain fingerprinting classification concealed information test detects US Navy military medical information with P300 |journal=Frontiers in Neuroscience |volume=8 |page=410 |doi=10.3389/fnins.2014.00410 |pmid=25565941 |doi-access=free |pmc=4274905 }}

Category:Lie detection Category:Psychology controversies