Cognitive Neurodynamics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 115–154

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

Review

Abstract

Brain fingerprinting (BF) detects concealed information stored in the brain by measuring brainwaves. A specific EEG event-related potential, a P300-MERMER, is elicited by stimuli that are significant in the present context. BF detects P300-MERMER responses to words/pictures relevant to a crime scene, terrorist training, bomb-making knowledge, etc. BF detects information by measuring cognitive information processing. BF does not detect lies, stress, or emotion. BF computes a determination of “information present” or “information absent” and a statistical confidence for each individual determination. Laboratory and field tests at the FBI, CIA, US Navy and elsewhere have resulted in 0% errors: no false positives and no false negatives. 100% of determinations made were correct. 3% of results have been “indeterminate.” BF has been applied in criminal cases and ruled admissible in court. Scientific standards for BF tests are discussed. Meeting the BF scientific standards is necessary for accuracy and validity. Alternative techniques that failed to meet the BF scientific standards produced low accuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures. BF is highly resistant to countermeasures. No one has beaten a BF test with countermeasures, despite a $100,000 reward for doing so. Principles of applying BF in the laboratory and the field are discussed.

Keywords

Brain fingerprinting P300-MERMER P300 Event-related potential Detection of concealed information 

References

  1. Abootalebi V, Moradi MH, Khalilzadeh MA (2006) A comparison of methods for ERP assessment in a P300-based GKT. Int J Psychophysiol 62(2):309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen J (2008) Not devoid of forensic potential, but…. Am J Bioethics 8(1):27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen J, Iacono WG (1997) A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection. Psychophysiology 34:234–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen JJ, Mertens R (2009) Limitations to the detection of deception: true and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event-related potential procedure. Soc Neurosci 4(6):473–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen J, Iacono WG, Danielson KD (1992) The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioral measures: a methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. Psychophysiology 29:504–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Başar-Eroglu C, Başar E, Demiralp T, Schürmann M (1992) P300-response: possible psychophysiological correlates in delta and theta frequency channels. A review. Int J Psychophysiol 13(2):161–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bashore T, Rapp P (1993) Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures? Psychol Bull 113:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baudena P, Halgren E, Heit G, Clarke JM (1995) Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. III. Frontal cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 94:251–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 US 579, 594 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. Donchin E, Ritter W, McCallum WC (1978) Cognitive psychophysiology: the endogenous components of the ERP. In: Callaway E, Teuting P, Koslow S (eds) Brain event-related potentials in man. Academic Press, New York, pp 349–441Google Scholar
  11. Donchin E, Miller GA, Farwell LA (1986) The endogenous components of the event-related potential—a diagnostic tool? In: Swaab DF, Fliers E, Mirmiran M, Van Gool WA, Van Haaren F (eds) Progress in brain research. Vol 70: Aging of the brain and Alzheimer’s disease. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erickson MJ (2007) Daubert’s bipolar treatment of scientific expert testimony—from Frye’s polygraph to Farwell’s brain fingerprinting. Drake Law Rev 55:763–812Google Scholar
  13. Fabiani M, Gratton G, Karis D, Donchin E (1987) The definition, identification and reliability of measurement of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential. In: Ackles PK, Jennings JR, Coles MGH (eds) Advances in psychophysiology, vol 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 1–78Google Scholar
  14. Farwell LA (1992a) The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new paradigm for psychophysiological detection of information. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp 1–165Google Scholar
  15. Farwell LA (1992b) Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational information. Psychophysiology 29(s4A):S3Google Scholar
  16. Farwell LA (1994) Method and apparatus for multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US Patent #5,363,858Google Scholar
  17. Farwell LA (1995a) Method and apparatus for truth detection. US Patent #5,406,956Google Scholar
  18. Farwell LA (1995b) Method for electroencephalographic information detection. US Patent #5,467,777Google Scholar
  19. Farwell, LA (1999) How consciousness commands matter: the new scientific revolution and the evidence that anything is possible. Sunstar. Fairfield, IAGoogle Scholar
  20. Farwell LA (2007) Apparatus for a classification guilty knowledge test and integrated system for detection of deception and information. UK Patent #GB2421329Google Scholar
  21. Farwell LA (2008) Brain fingerprinting detects real crimes in the field despite one-hundred-thousand-dollar reward for beating it. Psychophysiology 45(s1):S1Google Scholar
  22. Farwell LA (2009) Brain fingerprinting in global security. Presented at the Global Security Challenge Security Summit, Nov 2009. London Business School, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Farwell LA (2010) Method and apparatus for brain fingerprinting, measurement, assessment and analysis of brain function. US Patent # 7,689,272Google Scholar
  24. Farwell LA (2011a) Brain fingerprinting: corrections to Rosenfeld. Sci Rev Mental Health Practice 8(2):56–68. http://www.brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Brain_Fingerprinting_Corrections_to_Rosenfeld_Scientific_Review_of_Mental_Health_Practice.pdf Google Scholar
  25. Farwell LA (2011b) Brain fingerprinting: comprehensive corrections to Rosenfeld in scientific review of mental health practice. Excalibur Scientific Press, Seattle. http://www.brainwavescience.com/Scientific_Review_of_Mental_Health_Practice_Farwell_Corrections_to_Rosenfeld.pdf
  26. Farwell LA (2012) Brain fingerprinting: a tutorial review of laboratory research and field applications. Evergreen Press, Seattle. Available at: http://www.brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Brain_Fingerprinting_Tutorial_Review
  27. Farwell LA (2013) Lie detection. In: Saukko P (ed) Encyclopedia of forensic sciences, 2nd edn. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Farwell LA, Donchin E (1986) The “brain detector”: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology 23(4):434Google Scholar
  29. Farwell LA, Donchin E (1988a) Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 70:510–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Farwell LA, Donchin E (1988b) Event-related brain potentials in interrogative polygraphy: analysis using bootstrapping. Psychophysiology 25(4):445Google Scholar
  31. Farwell LA, Donchin E (1991) The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy (‘‘lie detection’’) with event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 28(5):531–547. http://www.Brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Donchin_1991_Psychophysiology_Brain_Fingerprinting_The_Truth_Will_Out.pdf Google Scholar
  32. Farwell LA, Farwell GW (1995) Quantum-mechanical processes and consciousness. Bull Am Phys Soc 40(2):956–957Google Scholar
  33. Farwell LA, Makeig TH (2005) Farwell brain fingerprinting in the case of Harrington v. State. Open Court X [10]:3, 7-10 Indiana State Bar Assoc. Available at: http://www.brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Brain_Fingerprinting_in_Harrington_v_State
  34. Farwell LA, Richardson DC (2006a) Brain fingerprinting in laboratory conditions. Psychophysiology 43(s1):S37–S38Google Scholar
  35. Farwell LA, Richardson DC (2006b) Brain fingerprinting in field conditions. Psychophysiology 43(s1):S38Google Scholar
  36. Farwell LA, Smith SS (2001) Using brain MERMER testing to detect concealed knowledge despite efforts to conceal. J Forensic Sci 46(1):135–143. Available at: http://www.Brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Smith_Journal_of_Forensic_Sciences_Brain_Fingerprinting.pdf Google Scholar
  37. Farwell LA, Martinerie JM, Bashore TR, Rapp PE, Goddard PH (1993) Optimal digital filters for long-latency components of the event-related brain potential. Psychophysiology 30(3):306–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Farwell LA, Richardson DC, Richardson G (2011) Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 ERPs in the detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology 48: S95–S96 (abstract). Available at: http://www.brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Richardson_Richardson_2011_Brain_Fingerprinting_Field_Studies_Comparing_P300MERMER_and_P300_in_the_Detection_of_Concealed_Information.pdf
  39. Farwell LA, Richardson DC, Richardson GM (in press) Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information. Evergreen Press, Seattle. http://www.brainwavescience.com/Farwell_Richardson_Richardson_Brain_Fingerprinting_Field_Studies_Comparing_P300-MERMER_and_P300_Brainwave_Responses_in_the_Detection_of_Concealed_Information
  40. Gaillard AKW, Ritter W (1983) Tutorials in event-related potential research: endogenous components. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Gamer M, Berti S (2009) Task relevance and recognition of concealed information have different influences on electrodermal activity and event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 47(2):355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grier JB (1971) Non-parametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: computing formulas. Psychol Bull 75:424–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Güntekin B, Başar E (2010) A new interpretation of P300 responses upon analysis of coherences. Cogn Neurodyn 4(2):107–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hahm J, Ji HK, Jeong JY, Oh DH, Kim SH, Sim KB, Lee JH (2009) Detection of concealed information: combining a virtual mock crime with a P300-based Guilty Knowledge Test. Cyberpsychol Behav 12(3):269–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Halgren E, Stapleton JM, Smith ME, Altafullah I (1986) Generators of the human scalp P3(s). In: Cracco RQ, Bodis-Wollner I (eds) Evoked potentials, frontiers of clinical neuroscience, vol 3. Alan R. Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Halgren E, Baudena P, Clarke JM, Heit G, Liegois C, Chauvel P et al (1995) Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. I. Superior temporal plane and parietal lobe. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 94:191–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Halgren E, Marinkovic K, Chauvel P (1998) Generators of the late cognitive potentials in auditory and visual oddball tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 106:156–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harrington v. State. Case No. PCCV 073247(Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, 5 March 2001)Google Scholar
  49. Harrington v. State. 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003)Google Scholar
  50. Heisenberg W (1958) Physics and philosophy, the revolution in modern science. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Hira S, Furumitsu I (2002) Polygraphic examinations in Japan: applications of the guilty knowledge test in forensic investigations. Int J Police Sci Manag 4:16–27Google Scholar
  52. Huster RJ, Pantev C, Konrad C, Westerhausen R (2010) The role of the cingulate cortex as neural generator of the N200 and P300 in a tactile response inhibition task. Hum Brain Mapp 31(8):1260–1271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Iacono WG (2007) Detection of deception. In: Cacioppo J, Tassinary L, Berntson G (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 688–703Google Scholar
  54. Iacono WG (2008) The forensic application of “Brain Fingerprinting”: why scientists should encourage the use of P300 memory detection methods. Am J Bioethics 8(1):30–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Iacono WG, Lykken DT (1997) The validity of the lie detector: two surveys of scientific opinion. J Appl Psychol 82:426–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Iacono WG, Patrick CJ (2006) Polygraph (“lie detector”) testing: current status and emerging trends. In: Weiner IB, Hess AK (eds) The handbook of forensic psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 552–588Google Scholar
  57. Johnson R (1988) The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential: review and synthesis. In: Ackles P, Jennings JR, Coles MGH (eds) Advances in psychophysiology: a research annual, vol 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 69–137Google Scholar
  58. Johnson RJ (1989) Auditory and visual P300s in temporal lobectomy patients: evidence for modality-dependent generators. Psychophysiology 26(6):633–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Johnson RJ (1993) On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology 30(1):90–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Johnson MM, Rosenfeld JP (1992) Oddball-evoked P300-based method of deception detection in the laboratory II: utilization of non-selective activation of relevant knowledge. Int J Psychophysiol 12(3):289–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kiss I, Dashieff RM, Lordeon P (1989) A parieto-occipital generator for P300: evidence from human intracranial recordings. Int J Neurosci 49:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kubo K, Nittono H (2009) The role of intention to conceal in the P300-based concealed information test. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 34(3):227–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Iowa 1999)Google Scholar
  64. Lefebvre CD, Marchand Y, Smith SM, Connolly JF (2007) Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Psychophysiology 44(6):894–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lefebvre CD, Marchand Y, Smith SM, Connolly JF (2009) Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception. Int J Psychophysiol 73(3):218–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Li Y, Hu Y, Liu T, Wu D (2011) Dipole source analysis of auditory P300 response in depressive and anxiety disorders. Cogn Neurodyn 5(2):221–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Linden D (2005) The P300: where in the brain is it produced and what does it tell us? Neuroscientist 11(6):563–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Long J, Gu Z, Li Y, Yu T, Li F, Fu M (2011) Semi-supervised joint spatio-temporal feature selection for P300-based BCI speller. Cogn Neurodyn 5(4):387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lui M, Rosenfeld JP (2008) Detection of deception about multiple, concealed, mock crime items, based on a spatial-temporal analysis of ERP amplitude and scalp distribution. Psychophysiology 45(5):721–730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lykken DT (1959) The GSR in the detection of guilt. J Appl Psychol 43:385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lykken DT (1960) The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. J Appl Psychol 44:258–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meegan DV (2008) Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: scientific, ethical and legal issues. Am J Bioethics 8:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Meijer EH, Smulders FTY, Merckelbach HLGJ, Wolf AG (2007) The P300 is sensitive to face recognition. Int J Psychophysiol 66(3):231–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meijer EH, Smulders FTY, Wolf A (2009) The contribution of mere recognition to the P300 effect in a concealed information test. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 34(3):221–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meixner JB, Rosenfeld PJ (2010) Countermeasure mechanisms in a P300-based concealed information test. Psychophysiology 47(1):57–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meixner JB, Rosenfeld PJ (in press) A mock terrorism application of the P300-based concealed information test. PsychophysiologyGoogle Scholar
  77. Meixner JB, Haynes A, Winograd MR, Brown J, Rosenfeld PJ (2009) Assigned versus random, countermeasure-like responses in the p300 based complex trial protocol for detection of deception: task demand effects. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 34(3):209–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mertens R, Allen JJB (2008) The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology 45(2):286–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mertens R, Allen J, Culp N, Crawford L (2003) The detection of deception using event-related potentials in a highly realistic mock crime scenario. Psychophysiology 40:S60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Miller GA, Bashore TR, Farwell LA, Donchin E (1987) Research in geriatric psychophysiology. In: Schaie KW, Eisdorfer C (eds) Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, vol 7. Springer, New York, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  81. Miyake Y, Mizutanti M, Yamahura T (1993) Event related potentials as an indicator of detecting information in field polygraph examinations. Polygraph 22:131–149Google Scholar
  82. Moenssens AA (2002) Brain fingerprinting—can it be used to detect the innocence of persons charged with a crime? UMKC Law Rev 70:891–920Google Scholar
  83. Murphy PR, Robertson IH, Balsters JH, O’Connell RG (2011) Pupillometry and P3 index the locus coeruleus—noradrenergic arousal function in humans. Psychophysiology 48:1531–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. National Research Council (2003) The polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  85. Neshige R, Kuroda Y, Kakigi R, Fujiyama F, Matoba R, Yarita M, Luders H, Shibasaki H (1991) Event-related brain potentials as indicators of visual recognition and detection of criminals by their use. Forensic Sci Int 51(1):95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD (2005) Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus—norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull 131(4):510–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Picton TW (1988) Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human event-related potentials, vol 3. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  88. Pineda JA, Foote SL, Neville HJ (1989) Effects of locus coeruleus lesions on auditory, long-latency, event-related potentials in monkey. J Neurosci 9:81–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Rapp PE, Albano AM, Schmah TI, Farwell LA (1993) Filtered noise can mimic low dimensional chaotic attractors. Phys Rev E 47(4):2289–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Roberts AJ (2007) Everything new is old again: brain fingerprinting and evidentiary analogy. Yale JL Tech 9:234–270. Available at: http://www.yjolt.org/files/roberts-9-YJOLT-234.pdf
  91. Rosenfeld JP (1995) Alternative views of Bashore and Rapp’s (1993) alternatives to traditional polygraphy: a critique. Psychol Bull 117(1):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rosenfeld JP (2002) Event-related potentials in the detection of deception, malingering, and false memories. In: Kleiner M (ed) Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press, New York, pp 265–286Google Scholar
  93. Rosenfeld JP (2005) ‘‘Brain fingerprinting:’’ a critical analysis. Sci Rev Mental Health Practice 4:20–37Google Scholar
  94. Rosenfeld JP, Labkovsky E (in press) New P300-based protocol to detect concealed information: Resistance to mental countermeasures against only half the irrelevant stimuli and a possible ERP indicator of countermeasures. PsychophysiologyGoogle Scholar
  95. Rosenfeld JP, Nasman VT, Whalen R, Cantwell B, Mazzeri L (1987) Late vertex positivity in event-related potentials as a guilty knowledge indicator: a new method of lie detection. Int J Neurosci 34:125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rosenfeld JP, Cantwell G, Nasman VT, Wojdac V, Ivanov S, Mazzeri L (1988) A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. Int J Neurosci 42:157–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rosenfeld JP, Angell A, Johnson M, Qian J (1991) An ERP-based, control-question lie detector analog: algorithms for discriminating effects within individuals’ average waveforms. Psychophysiology 28:319–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rosenfeld JP, Soskins M, Bosh G, Ryan A (2004) Simple effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology 41(2):205–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rosenfeld JP, Biroschak JR, Furedy JJ (2006) P-300-based detection of concealed autobiographical versus incidentally acquired information target and non-target paradigms. Int J Psychophysiol 60(3):251–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rosenfeld JP, Shue E, Singer E (2007) Single versus multiple probe blocks of P300-based concealed information tests for autobiographical versus incidentally learned information. Biol Psychol 74:396–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rosenfeld JP, Labkovsky E, Lui MA, Winograd M, Vandenboom C, Chedid K (2008) The complex trial protocol (CTP): a new, countermeasure-resistant, accurate P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology 45:906–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rosenfeld JP, Tang M, Meixner JB, Winograd M, Labkovsky E (2009) The effects of asymmetric vs. symmetric probability of targets following probe and irrelevant stimuli in the complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information with P300. Physiol Behav 98(1–2):10–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sabeti M, Moradi E, Katebi S (2011) Analysis of neural sources of p300 event-related potential in normal and schizophrenic participants. Adv Exp Med Biol 696:589–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sasaki M, Hira H, Matsuda T (2002) Effects of a mental countermeasure on the physiological detection of deception using P3. Stud Humanit Sci 42:73–84Google Scholar
  105. Slaughter v. State, No. PCD-2004-277 (Okla. Ct. of Crim. App., 16 Apr 2004)Google Scholar
  106. Smith ME, Halgren E, Sokolik M, Baudena P, Musolino A, Liegois-Chauvel C et al (1990) The intracranial topography of the P3 event-related potential elicited during auditory oddball. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 76:235–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sochurková D, Brázdil M, Jurák P, Rektor I (2006) P3 and ERD/ERS in a visual oddball paradigm: a depth EEG study from the mesial temporal structures. J Psychophysiol 20(1):32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Soskins M, Rosenfeld JP, Niendam T (2001) The case for peak to peak measurement of P300 recorded at 3 Hz high pass filter settings in detection of deception. Int J Psychophysiol 40:173–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Spencer KM, Dien J, Donchin E (2001) Spatiotemporal analysis of the late ERP responses to deviant stimuli. Psychophysiology 38:343–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Stapleton JM, Halgren E (1987) Endogenous potentials evoked in simple cognitive tasks: depth components and task correlates. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 67:44–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER (1965) Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 150:1187–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Verschuere B, Rosenfeld JP, Winograd M, Labkovksy E, Wiersema JR (2009) The role of deception in P300 memory detection. Legal Criminol Psychol 14(2):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Verschuere B, Ben-Shakhar G, Meijer E (2011) Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  114. Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  115. Wang C, Ulbert I, Schomer DL, Marinkovic K, Halgren E (2005) Responses of human anterior cingulate cortex microdomains to error detection, conflict monitoring, stimulus-response mapping, familiarity, and orienting. J Neurosci 25:604–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wasserman S, Bockenholt U (1989) Bootstrapping: applications to psychophysiology. Psychophysiology 26:208–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Winograd MR, Rosenfeld P (in press) Mock crime application of the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) P300-based concealed information test. PsychophysiologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc.SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations