Brain fingerprinting detects concealed information stored in the brain by measuring brainwave responses. We compared P300 and P300-MERMER event-related brain potentials for error rate/accuracy and statistical confidence in four field/real-life studies. 76 tests detected presence or absence of information regarding (1) real-life events including felony crimes; (2) real crimes with substantial consequences (either a judicial outcome, i.e., evidence admitted in court, or a $100,000 reward for beating the test); (3) knowledge unique to FBI agents; and (4) knowledge unique to explosives (EOD/IED) experts. With both P300 and P300-MERMER, error rate was 0 %: determinations were 100 % accurate, no false negatives or false positives; also no indeterminates. Countermeasures had no effect. Median statistical confidence for determinations was 99.9 % with P300-MERMER and 99.6 % with P300. Brain fingerprinting methods and scientific standards for laboratory and field applications are discussed. Major differences in methods that produce different results are identified. Markedly different methods in other studies have produced over 10 times higher error rates and markedly lower statistical confidences than those of these, our previous studies, and independent replications. Data support the hypothesis that accuracy, reliability, and validity depend on following the brain fingerprinting scientific standards outlined herein.

No abstract

A classification concealed information test (CIT) used the “brain fingerprinting” method of applying P300 event-related potential (ERP) in detecting information that is (1) acquired in real life and (2) unique to US Navy experts in military medicine. Military medicine experts and non-experts were asked to push buttons in response to three types of text stimuli. Targets contain known information relevant to military medicine, are identified to subjects as relevant, and require pushing one button. Subjects are told to push another button to all other stimuli. Probes contain concealed information relevant to military medicine, and are not identified to subjects. Irrelevants contain equally plausible, but incorrect/irrelevant information. Error rate was 0%. Median and mean statistical confidences for individual determinations were 99.9% with no indeterminates (results lacking sufficiently high statistical confidence to be classified). We compared error rate and statistical confidence for determinations of both information present and information absent produced by classification CIT (Is a probe ERP more similar to a target or to an irrelevant ERP?) vs. comparison CIT (Does a probe produce a larger ERP than an irrelevant?) using P300 plus the late negative component (LNP; together, P300-MERMER). Comparison CIT produced a significantly higher error rate (20%) and lower statistical confidences: mean 67%; information-absent mean was 28.9%, less than chance (50%). We compared analysis using P300 alone with the P300 + LNP. P300 alone produced the same 0% error rate but significantly lower statistical confidences. These findings add to the evidence that the brain fingerprinting methods as described here provide sufficient conditions to produce less than 1% error rate and greater than 95% median statistical confidence in a CIT on information obtained in the course of real life that is characteristic of individuals with specific training, expertise, or organizational affiliation.

Farwell in Cogn Neurodyn 6:115–154, (2012) reviewed all research on brainwave-based detection of concealed information published in English, including the author’s laboratory and field research. He hypothesized that specific methods are sufficient to obtain less than 1 % error rate and high statistical confidence, and some of them are necessary. Farwell proposed 20 brain fingerprinting scientific standards embodying these methods. He documented the fact that all previous research and data are compatible with these hypotheses and standards. Farwell explained why failure to meet these standards resulted in decrements in performance of other, alternative methods. Meijer et al. criticized Farwell in Cogn Neurodyn 6:115–154, (2012) and Farwell personally. The authors stated their disagreement with Farwell’s hypotheses, but did not cite any data that contradict the three hypotheses, nor did they propose alternative hypotheses or standards. Meijer et al. made demonstrable misstatements of fact, including false ad hominem statements about Farwell, and impugned Farwell’s motives and character. We provide supporting evidence for Farwell’s three hypotheses, clarify several issues, correct Meijer et al.’s misstatements of fact, and propose that the progress of science is best served by practicing science: designing and conducting research to test and as necessary modify the proposed hypotheses and standards that explain the existing data.

Arabinose 5-phosphate ( A5P ) isomerase is a key enzyme in the biosynthesis of lipopolysaccharide, an essential component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. The mechanism of the isomerase is envisioned to involve an enediol intermediate. A series of compounds, which are analogues of the substrates or intermediate, were tested as inhibitors of A5P isomerase with the belief that a good inhibitor would stop bacterial growth or render the cells more susceptible to other antibiotics or natural defenses. In a series of phosphorylated sugars, the order of isomerase inhibitory activity was as follows: aldonic acids greater than alditols greater than aldoses. Nonphosphorylated sugars were much less inhibitory. The best inhibitor was erythronic acid 4-phosphate (54), which had Km/Ki = 29. None of the compounds displayed antibacterial activity in vitro.