- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by bambleneck
- Nov 03, 2002, 10:58 PMOn 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.
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.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 26, 2002, 10:36 PMOf course the polygraph community cannot admit to anything. It is well established and is not even a matter of contraversy that the polygraph works largely to the degree that people believe it works.
This is what makes it so painful for an innocent examinee. They are astonished and feel really awful when accused of deception in a polygraph session. If one had previously believed in their accuracy then it is a total shock producing huge amounts of cognitive dissonance. The internet provides the opportunity to meet others who have gone through similar pain and the results are pretty obvious.
As an observer intrigued by the dialectic, I must say I feel fortunate to learn a great deal about human nature and how a group of people, truly meaning to do good, can produce such harm. Also how others, so harmed, can heal and respond.
It is easy and clean to hate the evil. However, by far the greater evil is produced accidentally by people with good intentions.
Who was that wise one that said: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions?"
-Marty
This is what makes it so painful for an innocent examinee. They are astonished and feel really awful when accused of deception in a polygraph session. If one had previously believed in their accuracy then it is a total shock producing huge amounts of cognitive dissonance. The internet provides the opportunity to meet others who have gone through similar pain and the results are pretty obvious.
As an observer intrigued by the dialectic, I must say I feel fortunate to learn a great deal about human nature and how a group of people, truly meaning to do good, can produce such harm. Also how others, so harmed, can heal and respond.
It is easy and clean to hate the evil. However, by far the greater evil is produced accidentally by people with good intentions.
Who was that wise one that said: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions?"
-Marty
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 26, 2002, 09:32 PMDrew,
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.
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.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 26, 2002, 09:16 PMBambleneck,
Your write:
As many a lecturer (as do I when discussing brain fingerprinting) has said, there are no silly questions, only those not asked. That having been said, there additionally exist absurd questions, and my friend, you have reached your limit. But because I see an opportunity to expound on a previously unexplored area, I will indulge you one more time. With regard to the quite reasonable question you asked regarding subjectivity of results, although there is no procedure that is totally without some subjectivity, the analysis of brain fingerprinting results is one involving very little subjectivity (any subjectivity would likely occur in the earlier choice of crime scene probe material). A mathematical algorithm involving a well-known process called bootstrapping analyzes the collected digitized results and leads to an information present or absent determination (an inconclusive finding is possible as well) accompanied by an associated statistical confidence level. This process involves neither input nor further analysis by the examiner and therefore again allows for little (none as far as I am aware of) subjective input on the part of that analyst.
With regard to your brain surgery model for brain fingerprinting, I think the concept of DNA fingerprinting should assure you that other "fingerprinting" applications do not involve inked anatomy with that anatomy subsequently being rolled on paper surfaces. That which traditional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting, and brain fingerprinting have in common is not ridges, nucleotide base pairs, and P300 responses, but information unique to a given individual obtained from different biological systems (bioinformatics) and which potentially serves to connect that individual to a crime scene or other environment or background of interest to law enforcement. In the case of brain fingerprinting it is not a given P300 response which is unique to a given individual (it is not) but the totality of P300 responses to several appropriately chosen crime-related and privileged pieces of information presented in a given context; we refer to those individual pieces of crime relevant information as probes. Likewise with a fingerprint match, it is not a particular ridge match which is unique, but perhaps a dozen points of comparisons between a latent print and rolled print. And again, with DNA fingerprinting it is not a given AT or CG base pair which is significant, but a given sequence of these base pairs at various predetermined points along the DNA strand which is significant. I hope this will give you and others some perspective about what traditional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting, and brain fingerprinting share in common.
Your write:
Quote...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...
As many a lecturer (as do I when discussing brain fingerprinting) has said, there are no silly questions, only those not asked. That having been said, there additionally exist absurd questions, and my friend, you have reached your limit. But because I see an opportunity to expound on a previously unexplored area, I will indulge you one more time. With regard to the quite reasonable question you asked regarding subjectivity of results, although there is no procedure that is totally without some subjectivity, the analysis of brain fingerprinting results is one involving very little subjectivity (any subjectivity would likely occur in the earlier choice of crime scene probe material). A mathematical algorithm involving a well-known process called bootstrapping analyzes the collected digitized results and leads to an information present or absent determination (an inconclusive finding is possible as well) accompanied by an associated statistical confidence level. This process involves neither input nor further analysis by the examiner and therefore again allows for little (none as far as I am aware of) subjective input on the part of that analyst.
With regard to your brain surgery model for brain fingerprinting, I think the concept of DNA fingerprinting should assure you that other "fingerprinting" applications do not involve inked anatomy with that anatomy subsequently being rolled on paper surfaces. That which traditional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting, and brain fingerprinting have in common is not ridges, nucleotide base pairs, and P300 responses, but information unique to a given individual obtained from different biological systems (bioinformatics) and which potentially serves to connect that individual to a crime scene or other environment or background of interest to law enforcement. In the case of brain fingerprinting it is not a given P300 response which is unique to a given individual (it is not) but the totality of P300 responses to several appropriately chosen crime-related and privileged pieces of information presented in a given context; we refer to those individual pieces of crime relevant information as probes. Likewise with a fingerprint match, it is not a particular ridge match which is unique, but perhaps a dozen points of comparisons between a latent print and rolled print. And again, with DNA fingerprinting it is not a given AT or CG base pair which is significant, but a given sequence of these base pairs at various predetermined points along the DNA strand which is significant. I hope this will give you and others some perspective about what traditional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting, and brain fingerprinting share in common.
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 26, 2002, 05:13 PMAh....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)
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)
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 26, 2002, 12:12 PMDear Seeker,
Once again, this website proves how censorship free it is, both bad and good humor are tolerated.
We just need a little more good humor! The bad humor is quite abundant!
Once again, this website proves how censorship free it is, both bad and good humor are tolerated.
We just need a little more good humor! The bad humor is quite abundant!
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 26, 2002, 02:43 AMOh 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?
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?
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 25, 2002, 11:06 PMQuote from: Bambleneck on Oct 25, 2002, 07:36 PMWouldn'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?
Yes. Fortunately those who undergo such a procedure may still find gainful employment and an exciting career at the DMV.
Posted by Bambleneck
- Oct 25, 2002, 07:36 PMDear 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?
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?
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 24, 2002, 11:21 AMDear Bambleneck,
I now know I was wise to stay away from this one after reading Dr. Richardson's response.
Once again, in depth knowledge of known facts must be carefully assembled for an accurate result.
These known facts are non-existent under current pre-screening policies which do not use a known fact format since the investigation occurs only if the polygraph portion is passed.
I now know I was wise to stay away from this one after reading Dr. Richardson's response.
Once again, in depth knowledge of known facts must be carefully assembled for an accurate result.
These known facts are non-existent under current pre-screening policies which do not use a known fact format since the investigation occurs only if the polygraph portion is passed.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 24, 2002, 01:52 AMBambleneck,
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
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
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 24, 2002, 01:22 AMQuote from: Bambleneck on Oct 24, 2002, 01:07 AM
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.
Although I'm sure Dr. Richardson can explain his work much more eloquently than can I, he's been careful to note several times on this website that his work involves only recognition detection; e.g. does someone recognize a picture of a certain location?, etc. That makes it useless for most of what the polygraph is used for (screening and fishing expeditions). He does not claim it's a form of lie detection.
Skeptic
Posted by Bambleneck
- Oct 24, 2002, 01:07 AMRichardson 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.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 23, 2002, 11:44 PMDear Bambleneck,
I have only recently been exposed to the wonderful "science" of polygraph.
The polygraph deals with breathing, sweat, blood pressure and pulse.
These four measurements have been the source of major problems in their interpretation.
Look at the incredible amount of information and discussion which has been created about this subject on many websites.
I have three engineering degrees and was pre-med when I was in college.
I can not imagine anyone wanting to tackle brain fingerprinting here at this point.
We are still in the dark ages trying trying to deal with the polygraph.
Try Antibrainfingerprinting.org.
If it doesn't exist, you just might be starting a webpage of the future.
Good Luck.
I have only recently been exposed to the wonderful "science" of polygraph.
The polygraph deals with breathing, sweat, blood pressure and pulse.
These four measurements have been the source of major problems in their interpretation.
Look at the incredible amount of information and discussion which has been created about this subject on many websites.
I have three engineering degrees and was pre-med when I was in college.
I can not imagine anyone wanting to tackle brain fingerprinting here at this point.
We are still in the dark ages trying trying to deal with the polygraph.
Try Antibrainfingerprinting.org.
If it doesn't exist, you just might be starting a webpage of the future.
Good Luck.
Posted by Bambleneck
- Oct 23, 2002, 09:54 PMHas anyone found a countermeasure for brain fingerprinting?
http://www.brainwavescience.com/Drew/I hear antipsychotics work.
http://www.brainwavescience.com/Drew/I hear antipsychotics work.