-
vinaym89
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:42 am
- Location: New Delhi, India
- GMAT Score:650
An event-related potential (ERP) is the term
neuroscientists use to describe any brain response to a
thought or perception that can be measured by
electroencephalography (EEG), a technique that can
(5) reliably distinguish between electrical activity in the
brain triggered by physical stimuli and that triggered
by memories, expectations, or other changes in mental
state. One of the most forensically significant ERPs to
be identified, in this case in the 1960s in California,
(10) is P300-so named because its positive voltage
deflection, generally in or near the parietal lobe,
typically peaks 300 milliseconds after the stimulus
appears-which has been linked to high-level cognitive
functions such as evaluation and categorization of
(15) task-relevant stimuli.
That P300 measurements can identify stimuli of
particular significance makes the ERP ideal for
investigative uses. Unlike the polygraph test, which
relies on emotional response and its attendant
(20) physiological effects-increases in heart rate and
blood pressure-to determine whether or not a subject
is telling the truth, brain fingerprinting, the forensic
application of P300 developed by Dr. Lawrence Farwell,
measures only the brain's response to a given image or
(25) phrase, effectively overriding verbal responses in
which, for example, one might deny familiarity with a
weapon involved in a crime. Though the technique has
demonstrated impressive accuracy, it is limited in that
it cannot account for why the brain reacts to certain
(30) stimuli, only for whether or not information related to
it is present therein. Brain fingerprinting is
admissible in several courts in the United States.
Q. Which of the following best describes the structure of the passage?
A. The scientific background of a forensic technique, followed by perspectives on that technique.
B. Details on a controversial technology and the science on which it is based.
C. Information about neuroscience, then a complication that has arisen from one facet of it.
D. An assessment of two kinds of scientific technique once the technical groundwork for them has been described.
E. An overview of some principles of neuroscience followed by a particular application.
OA :E
Could someone please explain why option A is wrong?
neuroscientists use to describe any brain response to a
thought or perception that can be measured by
electroencephalography (EEG), a technique that can
(5) reliably distinguish between electrical activity in the
brain triggered by physical stimuli and that triggered
by memories, expectations, or other changes in mental
state. One of the most forensically significant ERPs to
be identified, in this case in the 1960s in California,
(10) is P300-so named because its positive voltage
deflection, generally in or near the parietal lobe,
typically peaks 300 milliseconds after the stimulus
appears-which has been linked to high-level cognitive
functions such as evaluation and categorization of
(15) task-relevant stimuli.
That P300 measurements can identify stimuli of
particular significance makes the ERP ideal for
investigative uses. Unlike the polygraph test, which
relies on emotional response and its attendant
(20) physiological effects-increases in heart rate and
blood pressure-to determine whether or not a subject
is telling the truth, brain fingerprinting, the forensic
application of P300 developed by Dr. Lawrence Farwell,
measures only the brain's response to a given image or
(25) phrase, effectively overriding verbal responses in
which, for example, one might deny familiarity with a
weapon involved in a crime. Though the technique has
demonstrated impressive accuracy, it is limited in that
it cannot account for why the brain reacts to certain
(30) stimuli, only for whether or not information related to
it is present therein. Brain fingerprinting is
admissible in several courts in the United States.
Q. Which of the following best describes the structure of the passage?
A. The scientific background of a forensic technique, followed by perspectives on that technique.
B. Details on a controversial technology and the science on which it is based.
C. Information about neuroscience, then a complication that has arisen from one facet of it.
D. An assessment of two kinds of scientific technique once the technical groundwork for them has been described.
E. An overview of some principles of neuroscience followed by a particular application.
OA :E
Could someone please explain why option A is wrong?
