Has anyone found a countermeasure for brain fingerprinting?
http://www.brainwavescience.com/Drew/I hear antipsychotics work.

Richardson says brain fingerprinting is superior to lie detectors. Polygraphs measure biological responses -- including breathing, pulse, blood pressure and perspiration -- to questions in an effort to tell whether someone is lying or telling the truth. 

Critics of the polygraph say the test can be easily fooled; people can train themselves to suppress their emotional responses through rehearsal or can change them by pinching themselves, for example. 

You can't control your brainwaves, Richardson argues. 

But a leading brain researcher at the University of California in San Diego -- who also happens to be a former student of Donchin -- said brainwaves can't hand down a guilty sentence either. 

"It's like saying you can measure brain activity from someone's scalp and read their mind," said Marta Kutas. "You can see differential electrical activity, but you can't read the electrical activity as if it were words. You can say it's different, but you can't interpret it." 

Brain fingerprinting is also limited by the fact that it depends on the examiner's subjective interpretation of the results, she said. But Kutas did allow that neuro-imaging may be useful to investigators if it is in conjunction with other physiological tests, such as the polygraph. 

(quoted from http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,47221,00.html)


HMMM.  Sounds like the same game with a different name. 

Bambleneck,

I do not no whether you actually seek the truth about matters you comment on, but in spite of your comment regarding antipsychotic drugs, I will endeavor to believe that you are serious in your inquiry regarding brain fingerprinting and efforts to apply countermeasures to that technology.

As Skeptic has quite correctly pointed out brain fingerprinting has absolutely nothing to do with conventional  (CQT or other) forms of polygraphic lie detection.  Brain fingerprinting employs different instrumentation, methods, and seeks to obtain a different end product from the one sought through lie detection methods.  Because I am limited in time, I will post in part an answer I provided to a similar inquiry by Public Servant within a different thread.  If your background and interest would merit it I would be happy to provide a more technical and complete discussion of these issues at a less busy time for me.  That aforementioned  post included the following:

"...Excellent comments/questions.  Let me explain a little bit about how the test works in order to place my response in some meaningful (I hope) context.  There are three types of stimuli involved: probes (the concealed information we are probing for), targets (positive controls), and irrelevants (negative controls).  All stimuli are reviewed with the examinee.  Any probes that he/she claims to innocently be familiar with (e.g. read about in a newspaper) are not used (innocent exposure verified later).  He is asked to memorize the list of targets and to push a certain computer mouse button each time he sees one of these items (all stimuli are presented to examinee on a computer monitor, all are visual, and the test does not involve the asking of any questions).  He is further instructed to push the other mouse button each time he sees one of the other stimuli (irrelevants or probes).  The stimuli are presented to the subject approximately every two seconds.  Ultimately through bootstrapping analysis we determine if the responses (P300 and MERMERs) to the probes look more like the responses to targets or to the irrelevants.  If the former is the case the individual is deemed to be knowledgeable (or information present) and with the latter situation the examinee is deemed to be not knowledgeable (or information absent).  A statistical confidence limit is associated with every determination.  

Although the subject can refuse to take the test, if he decides to participate, for the following reasons we believe we can assure participation which includes both subject concentration and the absence of any viable countermeasures: (1) the short interstimulus spacing would not logically lead to a “wandering mind,” (2) the examinee is forced to concentrate to complete the aforementioned mouse button task (which we monitor real time for degree of successful completion), (3) the EEG monitoring we do, gives us a real time monitor for eye movement and other artifacts as well as the P300 responses we seek to record, and (4) the responses we seek to measure occur beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after stimulus presentation (before a guilty examinee can even begin to think "other distracting thoughts").  I can honestly say I do not know how to successfully apply countermeasures to the exam.  I believe the same to be true for Dr. Larry Farwell (my colleague and the inventor of "brain fingerprinting") and others we have worked with in developing software for the data acquisition and analysis..."  Regards,

Drew Richardson
 
  

Dear Mr. Richardson, Mr.  Chance, and the Skeptic,

Thank you for responding to my silly question about brain fingerprint countermeasures. I just heard about brain fingerprinting when I listened to the recently posted NPR interview. I read the previous thread where you discussed your motives with Public Servant, and now I understand that you would never use the technology of brain fingerprinting for employment screening, but only in specific criminal incidents, and only to tell if the suspect's brain recognizes things, and the verdict would still be left to the jury and judge. 

I have another question.  Is it true, as the Wired article I quoted states, that
Brain fingerprinting is also limited by the fact that it depends on the examiner's subjective interpretation of the results

Excuse my confusion.    I am fascinated with this concept, but unlike Mr. Chance, I don't even have one degree in engineering, and was not pre-med in university, so here is another silly question. Wouldn't "brain finger printing" require the skull to be sawed open and fingers of the brain to be rolled in ink and pressed on a page?  How would this physically comparable image be able to allow a jury to know if a person was at the crime scene?  Wouldn't that just give them brain damage or something?   ???

Oh My Goodness!
Someone please tell me that I have run into the weekend drinkers club or something!  Are you guys serious, or do you merely enjoy displaying your attempts at comedy?

Ah....yes.  The bad humor abounds!
While I am sure there are those who would wish to display the comical side of themselves, I would strongly suggest they perform their acts in front of at least the children prior to subjecting us here to it.  Look, if they kids don't even find it funny, then skip it.
 
Tongue in cheek:
Seeker

(honestly enjoy the tabloid level  humor in here in the middle of the night when I am studying for an exam...keep it up, you poorly qualified humorists!  lmao)

Drew,

So obviously, you are very sensitive to the statistical probabilities and would present them to give an overview of the accuracy of your results.

This is something that is non-existent with current polygraph methodologies.  The polygraph proponents seem to constantly infer that they operate with 90% or more efficiency. They never admit to shortcomings.

On the original topic of this post, Brain Fingerprinting - Drew - I noticed on the TV Show "The Agency" last night Quinn used a P300 machine on a terrorist suspect.  I am sure it was dramatized, and not exactly how the real thing works, but it was interesting.  They put a bowl with wires attached on his head and didn't ask any questions, just showed him pictures.  I can see how this device, if it is as accurate as they say, could be helpful to clear innocent victims as well as place a suspect at a crime.  If a person doesn't consiously recognize something, say the crime happened long ago, could the subconsious still recognize it? What if it is something similar, say a similar weapon, but not exactly the same.  Would there still be recognition?

Would a person need lots of training to use one of these machines and interpret the information?  Would they need to be a scientist?  I think it is fascinating, and hope you post in here when the stock is about to IPO.