{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038178164768921635, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020093770931011386, 'mean_word_length': 5.122950819672131, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quantitative EEG and the Frye and Daubert Standards of Admissibility

The 70-year-old Frye standards of “general acceptance” were replaced by the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert criteria of the scientific method, which established the standards for admissibility of evidence in Federal Court. The four Daubert criteria were: 1- Hypothesis testing, 2- Estimates of error rates, 3- Peer reviewed publication and 4- General acceptance (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 61 U.S.L.W 4805 (U.S. June 29, 1993)). The present paper starts with the Daubert four factors and then matches them, step by step, to the scientific peer reviewed literature of quantitative EEG (QEEG) in relation to different clinical evaluations. This process shows how the peer reviewed science of the Digital EEG and the Quantitative EEG (QEEG) meet all of the Daubert standards of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the science and technical aspects of QEEG in measuring the effects of neurological and psychiatric dysfunction also match the recent Supreme Court standards of “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge (General Electric Co v. Joiner, 1997; Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 1999). Finally, it is shown that QEEG scientific knowledge and QEEG “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge meet the trilogy standards of the Supreme Court rulings in support of QEEG's admissibility as a clinically valid method in the evaluation of the nature and extent of neurological and psychiatric disorders.