Farwell Lawrence A, Richardson Graham M
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, 8825 34th Ave NE Suite L-155, Quil Ceda Village, WA 98271 USA.
Cogn Neurodyn. 2023 Feb;17(1):63-104. doi: 10.1007/s11571-022-09795-1. Epub 2022 Mar 29.
We conducted (I) 18 event-related potential (ERP) field tests to detect concealed information regarding major terrorist crimes and other real-world crimes and (II) 5 ERP tests regarding participation in a classified counterterrorism operation. This study is a test of the brain fingerprinting scientific standards hypothesis: that a specific set of methods for event-related potential (ERP) concealed information tests (CIT) known as the brain fingerprinting scientific standards provide the sufficient conditions to produce less than 1% error rate and greater than 95% median statistical confidence for individual determinations of whether the tested information is stored in each subject's brain. All previous published results in all laboratories are compatible with this hypothesis. We recorded P300 and P300-MERMER ERP responses to visual text stimuli of three types: targets contain known information, irrelevants contain unknown/irrelevant information, and probes contain the situation-relevant information to be tested, known only to the perpetrator and investigators. Classification CIT produced significantly better results than comparison CIT, independent of classification criteria. Classification CIT had 0% error rate; comparison CIT had 6% error rate. As in previous studies, classification-CIT median statistical confidences were approximately 99%, whereas comparison CIT statistical confidences were no better than chance for information-absent (IA) subjects (who did not know the tested information). Over half of the comparison-CIT IA determinations were invalid due to a less-than-chance computed probability of being correct. Experiment (I) results for median statistical confidence: Classification CIT, IA subjects: 98.6%; information-present (IP) subjects (who know the tested information): 99.9%; comparison CIT, IA subjects: 48.7%; IP subjects: 99.5%. Experiment (II) results (Classification CIT): error rate 0%, median statistical confidence 96.6%. Countermeasures had no effect on the classification CIT. These results, like all previous results in our laboratory and all others, support the brain fingerprinting scientific standards hypothesis and indicate that the classification CIT is a necessary condition for a reliable, accurate, and valid brainwave-based CIT. The comparison CIT, by contrast, produces high error rates and IA statistical confidences no better than chance.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11571-022-09795-1.
我们进行了（I）18项与事件相关电位（ERP）的现场测试，以检测有关重大恐怖主义犯罪和其他现实世界犯罪的隐藏信息，以及（II）5项关于参与机密反恐行动的ERP测试。本研究是对脑指纹科学标准假设的检验：即一组特定的与事件相关电位（ERP）隐藏信息测试（CIT）方法，称为脑指纹科学标准，为个体确定测试信息是否存储在每个受试者大脑中提供了充分条件，以产生低于1%的错误率和大于95%的中位数统计置信度。所有实验室之前发表的所有结果都与该假设相符。我们记录了对三种类型视觉文本刺激的P300和P300-MERMER ERP反应：目标包含已知信息，无关项包含未知/无关信息，探测项包含与情况相关的待测试信息，只有犯罪者和调查人员知道。分类CIT产生的结果明显优于比较CIT，与分类标准无关。分类CIT的错误率为0%；比较CIT的错误率为6%。与之前的研究一样，分类CIT的中位数统计置信度约为99%，而比较CIT对于无信息（IA）受试者（不知道测试信息的人）的统计置信度不比随机概率好。超过一半的比较CIT的IA判定无效，因为计算出的正确概率低于随机概率。实验（I）中位数统计置信度的结果：分类CIT，IA受试者：98.6%；有信息（IP）受试者（知道测试信息的人）：99.9%；比较CIT，IA受试者：48.7%；IP受试者：99.5%。实验（II）结果（分类CIT）：错误率0%，中位数统计置信度96.6%。应对措施对分类CIT没有影响。这些结果与我们实验室和其他所有实验室之前的所有结果一样，支持脑指纹科学标准假设，并表明分类CIT是基于脑电波的可靠、准确和有效的CIT的必要条件。相比之下，比较CIT产生的错误率很高，且IA统计置信度不比随机概率好。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s11571-022-09795-1获取的补充材料。
