Jonathan-
Your statement that "this is more like a fancy polygraph than anything else"
is particularly revealing for one who states they see potential relevance
and use in this procedure. This procedure is, IMHO, an attempt to make a
name and suffers from most of the same problems as most such attempts. It is
based on hundreds of studies to the same extent as "recovered memory" was
based on hundreds of cases. It is based on the mis-reading and
misunderstanding of a scientific literature. For example, what is the
preponderance of evidence on polygraph. That it is unreliable, illustrates
that the patient/subject is experiencing SOME emotion but not which, and
that its interpretation is extremely subject to bias of the experimenter,
situation, and a host of social and participant variables. That is the
reason it is not allowed as evidence in a court of law. Because most
scientists in the area do NOT consider it valid or reliable or both. i.e.,
it is not standard psychological practice (scientific practice). The same is
true of this research. It is based on hundreds of carefully selected studies
but carefully ignores many warnings from that research and, again, IMHO,
generalizes the results and even extends the specificity of the results far
beyond what evidence suggests is prudent. And this is not scientific
dispute. This guy is putting people in jail and releasing people from prison
on very slim scientific principle.
Tim Shearon
Department of Psychology
Albertson College of Idaho
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
teaching: Physiological, developmental, neuropsychology and history and
systems
http://www.albertson.edu/psychology
"Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly."
-Batman Costume warning label
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Weeds, Grass, and Brain Fingerprinting
I must admit when I first heard the words "Brain Fingerprinting" I was also
quite concerned. The claims were a bit outrageous, but the science behind
them is fairly sound. The brain will respond differently to information
that
is familiar than to information that is novel. (this is where the hundreds
of
studies they were talking about came from, similar to an "oddball" paradigm
that is prevalent in the ERP literature). I must assume they were using an
ERP procedure, and by presenting both familiar and novel information a
baseline within each subject can be created. Then, when information that is
either new or novel (this is the interesting part) is presented, the brain's
reaction is compared to the baseline data. Therefore, they are not
confirming
the null. This is more like a fancy polygraph than anything else, but still
could be useful.
The use of "weeds and grass" (here, I am assuming quite a bit) as the phrase
that concludes guilt or innocence was probably a bad one, and I would assume
that there were other details of the crime in which we didn't see details.
"Brain Fingerprinting," I don't think so, but there is some sound science
behind the research. I'm thinking more along the lines of an "Extended
Polygraph."
Jonathan Roberts, M.S.
Adjunct Faculty, Randolph Macon Woman's College
ABD in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Virginia Tech
