Identification of Offenders by Mind Fingerprinting Technology
AUTHORS
Ch Sudhakar,Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology (A), Visakhapatnam, AP, India
N.Thirupathi Rao,Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology (A), Visakhapatnam, AP, India
ABSTRACT
Mind Fingerprinting has recognized a hundred percentages precise in over 120 investigations with trials on FBI mediators, tests aimed at a United States intelligence agency and United States Navy, and trials on real-life situations containing offences. The Mind fingerprinting (MFP) detect hidden facts stored in the minds by measuring mind wave responses. We were compared P300-MERMER (“Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response”) and P300 result associated mind capacities for fault rate /accurateness and numerical assurance in four real studies. 76 tests discovered existence or nonappearance of info concerning (1) real-life proceedings as well as offence crime; (2) actual crime with significant penalty (3) facts distinctive to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and (4) facts inimitable to explosive Bomb disposal experts. Among together P300-MERMER and P300, the faulty rate was zero percentage: calculations were a hundred per cent perfect, no false positive or false negative; and no in calculations. Counter procedures have no outcome. Average statistical assurance for calculations was 99.9 % among P300-MERMER and 99.6 % among P300. Mind fingerprinting method and technical values for the research laboratory and turf applications were deliberated. Crucial dissimilarities in techniques that generate different results are recognized. Noticeably diverse techniques in further studies have formed over 10 time’s refined faulty rates and noticeably inferior statistical confidence. Facts maintain the assumptions to facilitate accurateness, consistency, and legality on subsequent the mind fingerprinting technical values outline in this.
KEYWORDS
Mind, Fingerprinting, P300, MERMER
REFERENCES
[1] Jackson Olive Aluri, “Brain fingerprinting,” International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, vol.5, no.1, (2015)
[2] BR Nivedhini, A Periyanayaki, “Brain fingerprinting technology,” Psychology Imperial journal of interdisciplinary research, (2017)
[3] MJ Blitz, “Lie detection, mind reading, and brain reading,” Searching Minds by Scanning Brains, pp.45-58, (2017)
[4] P McGorrery, “A further critique of brain fingerprinting: The possibility of propranolol usage by offenders,” Alternative Law Journal, vol.42, no.3, pp.216-220, (2017) DOI: 10.1177/1037969X17730204(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[5] HM Mallikarjun, “Machine learning-based classifier for falsehood detection,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, (2017)
[6] Kai Zhang, N.Thirupathi Rao, Debnath Bhattacharyya, “Matrix Depiction Based Cyst Detection in Pediatric Aged MRI/ ULTRASONIC and Ultrasonic Images,” International Journal of Smart Home, vol.12, no.4, pp.27-38, (2018) DOI:10.21742/IJSH.2018.12.4.04(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[7] Basar-Eroglu C, Basar E, and Demiralp T, “Schumann M P300-response: possible psychophysiological correlates in delta and theta frequency channels. A review,” IJP, vol.13, no.2, pp.161-79, (1992)
[8] Harrington v. State, Case No.PCCV 073247, Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, March 5, (2001)
[9] Dongyue Wang, Taegkeun Whangbo, “3D Point Cloud Reconstruction Using Structure from Motion with Sequence Images in Hadoop,” International Journal of Image and Signal Systems Engineering, vol.3, no.1, pp.1-6, (2019) DOI:10.21742/IJISSE.2019.3.1.01(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[10] William f. leo, “Fingerprint identification: objective science or subjective opinion?” California, (2001)