is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:
… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
The Rev Dodgson said:
is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
I’d tend to put that into the same bucket as lie detectors. Very good at telling if you are anxious. Very not good at telling why you are anxious. This one is probably very good at telling if your brain is turned on and not very good at telling if it’s just because you are alive.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
I’d tend to put that into the same bucket as lie detectors. Very good at telling if you are anxious. Very not good at telling why you are anxious. This one is probably very good at telling if your brain is turned on and not very good at telling if it’s just because you are alive.
Have you heard of it being used in Australia though?
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
I’d tend to put that into the same bucket as lie detectors. Very good at telling if you are anxious. Very not good at telling why you are anxious. This one is probably very good at telling if your brain is turned on and not very good at telling if it’s just because you are alive.
Have you heard of it being used in Australia though?
No. I’ve never heard of it at all.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:I’d tend to put that into the same bucket as lie detectors. Very good at telling if you are anxious. Very not good at telling why you are anxious. This one is probably very good at telling if your brain is turned on and not very good at telling if it’s just because you are alive.
Have you heard of it being used in Australia though?
No. I’ve never heard of it at all.
Probably Austria then.
I’ve never heard of it either, and anyway you can’t prove it.
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/
Did a quick Binge, and it seems we should be reading the Guardian:
fsm said:
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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/
Interesting.
The 0% error rate seems contrary to other reports, but maybe they are just better at it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
fsm said:
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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/
Interesting.
The 0% error rate seems contrary to other reports, but maybe they are just better at it.
That’s from 2012.
I wonder why we don’t hear more about this stuff.
The Rev Dodgson said:
is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
my brain is a tabula rasa.
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
fsm said:
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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/
Interesting.
The 0% error rate seems contrary to other reports, but maybe they are just better at it.
That’s from 2012.
I wonder why we don’t hear more about this stuff.
i’d reckons if the artificial intelligentsia can convert thoughts to a machine-worded output with some individualized training, then the business is at the state of fairly high confidence for lesser demanding outputs indicative of brain activity that might point to guilt or innocence
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
is the title of a New Scientist review of the book “The Battle for Your Brain”, which says:… can analyse EEG signals and tell if an individual knows something about a crime, act of terrorism, …
This technique is as popular with governments (such as those in Bangladesh, India and Australia) as it is derided by many scientists.
So what’s all that about?
my brain is a tabula rasa.
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far.
Almost empty, perhaps.
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
fsm said:
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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311838/
Interesting.
The 0% error rate seems contrary to other reports, but maybe they are just better at it.
That’s from 2012.
I wonder why we don’t hear more about this stuff.
I start being suspicious at:
>>Laboratory and field tests at the FBI, CIA, US Navy and elsewhere have resulted in 0% errors: no false positives and no false negatives.<<
and then get more suspicious at:
>>100% of determinations made were correct.<<
Nothing, and I mean nothing in science is 100%. Unless you knew the answer before you asked the question and fixed things accordingly. And no false positives or false negatives? If you get that result in your experiment, you’ve probably done something wrong.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Interesting.
The 0% error rate seems contrary to other reports, but maybe they are just better at it.
That’s from 2012.
I wonder why we don’t hear more about this stuff.
I start being suspicious at:
>>Laboratory and field tests at the FBI, CIA, US Navy and elsewhere have resulted in 0% errors: no false positives and no false negatives.<<
and then get more suspicious at:
>>100% of determinations made were correct.<<
Nothing, and I mean nothing in science is 100%. Unless you knew the answer before you asked the question and fixed things accordingly. And no false positives or false negatives? If you get that result in your experiment, you’ve probably done something wrong.
Agreed.
Please delete my “but maybe they are just better at it” nonsense :)
> Nothing, and I mean nothing in science is 100%.
Everything is 100% if you don’t take enough statistical samples.
They’re saying 3% indeterminate so they must have tested it on at least 30 people.
Perhaps they only tested it on 30 people, or only 60.
You get killed for wrongthink
>Nothing, and I mean nothing in science is 100%.
sometimes simple starting assumptions are the most reliable part of whatever
like there is something to observe and measure, the funny business can be in why it is done, and what is done with whatever
and there’s certainly potential for dubious objectives when the latters unduly influence the former