Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin

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 statisti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Farwell, Lawrence A., Richardson, Drew C.
Format:	Online
Language:	English
Published:	Springer Netherlands 2013
Online Access:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595431/

id	pubmed-3595431
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	pubmed-35954312013-03-14 Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin Farwell, Lawrence A. Richardson, Drew C. Brief Communication 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. Springer Netherlands 2013-01-09 2013-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3595431/ /pubmed/23494087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11571-012-9238-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2013 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
repository_type	Open Access Journal
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	US National Center for Biotechnology Information
building	NCBI PubMed
collection	Online Access
language	English
format	Online
author	Farwell, Lawrence A. Richardson, Drew C.
spellingShingle	Farwell, Lawrence A. Richardson, Drew C. Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
author_facet	Farwell, Lawrence A. Richardson, Drew C.
author_sort	Farwell, Lawrence A.
title	Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
title_short	Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
title_full	Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
title_fullStr	Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
title_full_unstemmed	Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin
title_sort	brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to meijer, ben-shakhar, verschuere, and donchin
description	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.
publisher	Springer Netherlands
publishDate	2013
url	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595431/
_version_	1611961543111475200

Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin

Similar Items