--- Begin Message ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
Source: http://www.us.net/signal/CurrentIssue/Oct01/decoding-oct.html
October 2001
�SIGNAL Magazine 2001
AFCEA (Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association) Journal for
Communications, Electronics, Intelligence, and Information Systems
Professionals
Decoding Minds, Foiling Adversaries
Information warfare is no longer just about machines; it is also about how
users think.
By Sharon Berry
Whether a threat comes from pilot error or enemy aggression, scientists are
finding that multisensor mapping and analysis of the brain lead to systems
with human-machine interfaces that can correct human error, aid
counterintelligence work and guard against attacks.
A technology, known as bio-fusion, combines sensors to examine biological
systems to understand how information and neural structures produce thought
and to display the thought in mathematical terms. By creating an advanced
database containing these terms, researchers now can look at brain activity
and determine if a person is lying, receiving instructions incorrectly or
concentrating on certain thought types that may indicate aggression.
Mapping human brain functions is not new; however, using multiple components
of the electromagnetic spectrum allows investigators to produce a different
snapshot of the brain to gain additional insight.
Dr. John D. Norseen, systems scientist for embedded systems, Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company, Marietta, Georgia, is developing the bio-fusion concept
further. "If you went into a hospital and had an EEG [electroencephalogram],
it is just telling you if your electrical patterns look fine, but maybe your
magnetic components are not functioning properly," he explains. "What I am
encouraging is multisensor analysis of the brain--looking at many areas of
the spectrum to get a different picture."
After the information is placed in a database, a composite model of the
brain
is created. "Now, just by getting an EEG, we can begin to interpolate a
better hyperspectral analysis," Norseen says. "The model provides us
amplified information."
Simple interaction with subjects has been used to test the system. A
researcher shows a picture to a person or asks a person to think of a number
between one and nine. Information is gathered and displayed on a monitor
much
like on a television. It shows that the person is thinking about the number
nine. The researcher then tells the person to say the same number, an action
that appears in another part of the brain, the parietal region. "By looking
at the collective data, we know that when this person thinks of the number
nine or says the number nine, this is how it appears in the brain, providing
a fingerprint, or what we call a brainprint," Norseen offers.
"We are at the point where this database has been developed enough that we
can use a single electrode or something like an airport security system
where
there is a dome above your head to get enough information that we can know
the number you're thinking," he adds. "If you go to an automatic teller
machine and the sensor system is in place, you could walk away and I would
be
able to access your personal identification code."
Norseen shares that the defense industry is interested because this type of
data is culturally independent information. Worldwide, most individuals
process certain information in the same regions of the brain.
Brainprints are unique to each person. While the number nine will appear in
the same brain areas of different people, it still occurs as a unique
signature of how a person specifically thinks of the number. Biology has the
tendency to create things that are self-similar, Norseen says. "The proteins
that lay down your fingerprints are the same protein materials that lay down
the neurons of the brain," he offers.
He also has been asked by military and law enforcement agencies to show how
brainprints can be used to determine probable cause, which could be used for
an anti-terrorism situation. "If someone is walking through the airport and
he goes through the security checkpoint and we get a feeling that this
person
is preoccupied with certain numbers or certain thought types that may
indicate hostility or aggression we could ask him questions and verify the
answers. Then it gives you probable cause to say, 'Sir/Ma'am, may we step
aside with you and ask you additional questions?' It allows you to find a
problem set within a large group." Norseen is confident that if such a
system
were fully developed it would be accepted if it meant everyone would be
safer
at the airport gate. The data he collects may not only show probable cause
but also truth verification, he adds. The brain, which uses energy, does not
want to expend it needlessly, he says. If someone is telling the truth, it
is
kept on the outside portion of the brain in low-energy domain areas of the
brain. "If someone starts to light up in more areas of the brain and at a
higher energy level, it means that the person is now starting to confabulate
or obfuscate." Research so far indicates a 90 to 95 percent accuracy rate.
Now that bio-fusion research has developed beyond the initial stages and the
database of what, how and where thoughts occur in the brain is mature,
scientists are looking at information injection, a contentious issue,
Norseen
admits. The concept is based on the fact that human perception consists of
certain invariant electromagnetic and biochemical lock-and-key interactions
with the brain that can be identified, measured and altered by mathematical
operations. If researchers can re-create the inverse function of what has
been observed, they gain the ability to communicate or transmit that
information back--intact or rearranged--to the individual or someone else,
Norseen says. "When you get down to the mathematical properties, information
injection is beginning to be demonstrated."
The brain is very susceptible to accepting information that is either real
and comes from its own memory mechanisms or from injection from an outside
source, Norseen notes. "I am sure you have memories of when the lawn was
being cut in late summer and of the smell of the chlorophyll," he says. "The
chlorophyll would then evoke other memories. I could possibly ping you with
a
light sequence or with an ELF [extremely low field] radiation sequence that
will cause you to think of other things, but they may be in the area that I
am encouraging. Those are direct ways in which I can cause the inverse
function of something to be fired off in the brain so that you are thinking
about it. I have now caused you to think about something you would not have
otherwise thought about."
By using information injection, a person could be isolated from a group and
made to believe that something is happening, while others in the group are
being left alone. Likewise, someone at a command post monitoring information
on a screen could be affected. Some experts believe that adversaries now are
designing techniques that could affect the brain and alter the human body's
ability to process stimuli.
Norseen hopes his work will lead to filters and walls that would block
intentional or unintentional corrupted information. "Look at the incident in
Japan where a lot of young children were watching a cartoon, and it caused
many of them to have cerebral seizures," he explains. "The information that
came over the screen showed lights at particular timing and pulsing
frequencies and in a certain combination of colors that caused the brain to
go into a seizure. If you were alerted, you could slow parts of the video
stream or change the timing mechanisms so the stream would not have a
negative impact on the brain."
Modifying corrupt information may not always be enough. Norseen compares
this
type of offensive attack to cyberspace attacks in which viruses infiltrate
computers. "Now there's potential for the viruses to affect the video
stream," he says. "They can be corrected or defended against, but more
complex protective measures would have to be installed. Instead of
electronic
warfare countermeasures and software virus countermeasures, we're getting
into information countermeasures."
Norseen believes his work with bio-fusion and the human-machine interface is
revolutionary and that a new set of questions must be asked when looking at
the state of information warfare. "We're so concerned with information
corrupting our machines that we're spending millions of dollars for our
protection against people writing Trojan horses. What about the human side
of
the human-machine interface? What's happening to the operator?" he asks.
Some experts believe that the information operator is a weak spot in the
nation's military assets. Additionally, some developers in the field see
Russia, China and several Middle Eastern countries as more advanced than the
United States in this area.
"The United States is not behind other countries [in this field]," Norseen
argues. "Government leaders are very aware of the information threat to the
soldier, but they are concerned about being careful to work on the defensive
side. However, other countries may be more interested in the
offensive/exploitative side. When we talk about our ability to have
information dominance, we know that our machines can be better and faster,
but sometimes we underplay what could happen to the operator. We are aware
that the enemy is going to go after the mind of the operator to bring down
the system, not by corrupting the machine but by corrupting the individual
soldier or decision maker."
One of the challenges of addressing the human side of the human-machine
interface is creating quantitative means to measure the impact of
information
on the human brain and neurophysiology. "We're looking at incidents such as
Columbine or teenagers playing games like Doom," he says. "How are they
being
influenced negatively? There have been no quantitative measures like what
I've been developing. When we can show that, we can identify more ways to
protect the human side of the human-machine envelope."
Bio-ethics specialists are reviewing bio-fusion and its applications,
specifically neural emulation software. Rather than involving a human, the
software captures human mental activity and can be tested against
psychological attacks. Software corrections and builds then would be put in
place to protect users. "Our ethics people are excited about this because
this is a way to protect people without subjecting them to experimentation,"
he says.
Synthetic reality is another approach to protection. "If I pick up a phone
right now, is it a person I talked to or a recording of the person's voice?
Or was it synthetically generated?" Norseen asks. Scientists can look at
components of a personality in a software application, select certain
components of the personality and create a synthetic person. "We can look at
150 things that Joe Smith, a special forces agent, does. He smiles 20
percent
of the time. He has a tick in his eye. We can extract those features and
create mini-morphs of him--we create identical Joes on the computer. I want
to communicate with Joe about secret information, but I want other parts of
my system to communicate with avatars of Joe. If someone tried to find our
communication, they would have to sift through a lot of other communications
that looked an awful lot like Joe. I would bury Joe in the noise of
himself."
Scientists have found that human errors also could possibly be corrected
using external means. A recent discovery determined that error correction
coding parameters of the brain involve the globus pallidus, a powerful error
correction mechanism. When people consider a decision, they visualize it and
talk to themselves and send it to the kinesthetic nerve to say, "Do you feel
good about this?" Then it comes back through the globus pallidus for one
more
visual look, and people decide to do it or not do it--a go/no go decision.
"If we proceed and do something that is in error, our globus pallidus comes
into play," Norseen notes. "It is connected to the kinesthetic nerve, which
is ineffable. It can't talk to the 'talk' areas of the brain, but it can
send
signals that go back through the stomach, and that's why you get that sick
feeling in your stomach. Something's wrong here."
For example, a pilot in the cockpit and the aircraft's system both may hear
an instruction, "Come right 90 degrees." The human hears the instruction,
but
the brain may actually have heard 80 degrees. "Even though the pilot may
confirm 90 degrees, the system can see that the person actually
misunderstood," Norseen notes. "The machine can say, 'I'm monitoring you and
even though you said you're coming 90 degrees, your brainprint analysis
indicates that you only understood 80 degrees. I request you come an
additional 10 degrees so we're in compliance with the overall command of the
system.' If we can show the globus pallidus 'go/no go' display of error
correction, we can create a checklist that says, 'Am I in accordance with
the
globus pallidus?'" Today, more than 70 percent of all accidents are caused
not by the machine but by humans using information incorrectly, Norseen
says..
Many of Norseen's ideas are still in early development. "As the areas of the
brain that reflect behavioral components of the human are identified and
understood, and as the software components are laid down, I can begin to
conduct tests on the synthetic human without using a real human," he says.
"I
can find out more things about the human now in a year than it took me in
the
past 10 years � where I can actually launch a truth verification system or a
knowledge warfare protection system. To do what? Enhance, strengthen and
protect the human side of the human-machine interface in any domain, any
weapon system," he concludes.
--- End Message ---
