• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
(Spring 2013) Improving Signature Recognition Success Rates
 

(Spring 2013) Improving Signature Recognition Success Rates

on

  • 782 views

The purpose of our study is to find out how to obtain the best results out of three signature feedback sensors through success and failure rates, and through user preferences. The results from this ...

The purpose of our study is to find out how to obtain the best results out of three signature feedback sensors through success and failure rates, and through user preferences. The results from this study could be used to help choose a more effective signature recognition method for business needs.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
782
Views on SlideShare
342
Embed Views
440

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

3 Embeds 440

http://icbrpurdue.org 265
http://www.icbrpurdue.org 152
http://new.icbrpurdue.org 23

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    (Spring 2013) Improving Signature Recognition Success Rates (Spring 2013) Improving Signature Recognition Success Rates Document Transcript

    • IMPROVING SIGNATURE RECOGNITION SUCCESS RATES The purpose of our study is to find out how to obtain the best results out of three signature feedback sensors through success and failure rates, and through user preferences. The results from this study could be used to help choose a more effective signature recognition method for business needs. Jarron Burdine, Michael Frost, Matthew Riedle, Michael Brockly, Stephen Elliott Overview Project Design The project was focused on three types of input for signature recognition from three difference sensors. We randomized the order of the sensors for each person. After attempting to enroll with each sensor, we had our subjects fill out a survey asking about their interaction. 42 people took part in our experiment. No Visual Feedback ($115) The no visual feedback sensor has a platen size of 3.5 x 2 inches, and was the second most successful at validating when being used to enroll into the signature recognition system. The only person that can see the feedback from the sensor is the person conducting the test. The person signing can’t see anything. PROS: - “There is a line for guidance.” - "It just seemed like the easiest one to use.“ CONS: -”…I find it hard to write it accurately without seeing how I’m doing...” Back-lit Visual Feedback ($319) The back-lit visual feedback sensor has a platen size of 3 x 2.5 inches, and was the most successful at validating when being used to enroll into the system. The sensor uses digital ink to show the signer their signature in real time. If they were to mess up, there’s an erase button easily accessible at the bottom of the screen. PROS: - "It was easier to see the feedback and use the sensor." - "I felt less desire to press really hard. Seeing my signature as I went along made me more comfortable writing.“ CONS: - None Pen and Paper Feedback ($100) The pen and paper ink feedback sensor has a platen size of 2.75 x 1 inch, and was the least successful of the three sensors. The sensor uses an ink pen and paper to provide visual feedback for the signer. After signing, the paper can be moved to a blank area for the next signer. PROS: - "Even though it did not enroll me into the system it was still the most natural way to write my signature." - “It felt like I was actually signing my name like I would on a regular paper document.“ CONS: -”…The pen and paper wasn't sensitive enough to read the results.” Pen and Paper 26% Back-lit 69% No- Feedback 5% User Preferences Failure Rate out of 42 Subjects No Feedback: 19% Back-lit: 0% Pen and Paper: 40% No-Feedback 0% Back-lit 71% Pen and Paper 29% User Preferences Failure Rate out of 7 Subjects No Feedback: 71% Back-lit: 0% Pen and Paper: 42% No- Feedback 6% Back-lit 68% Pen and Paper 26% User Preferences Failure Rate out of 35 Subjects No Feedback: 8% Back-lit: 0% Pen and Paper: 40% Based on the survey results, it was apparent that the back-lit sensor performed the best and was the most preferred of the three sensors. The pen and paper sensor did worse than we initially predicted. However, despite the poor performance, several people preferred using it due to familiarity and habituation. There were some unexpected results, such as the high failure rate of left- handed people, or the 100% success rate of the back-lit sensor. Overall, we would recommend the back-lit sensor due to the success rate and high quality of signature. The higher price is justified based on our results. OVERALL LEFT-HANDED RIGHT-HANDED CONCLUSION