Successfully reported this slideshow.

(2010) Fingerprint Force paper

666 views

Published on

This powerpoint is a copy of the presentation given at the IEEE Carnahan conference in San Jose, 7th October, 2010

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

(2010) Fingerprint Force paper

  1. 1. Examination of Fingerprint Image Quality and Performance on Force Acquisition vis-à-vis Auto-captureCarnahan Conference| San Jose, CA| October 7th, 2010<br />Biometric Standards, Performance, and Assurance Laboratory | <br />Purdue University<br /> www.bspalabs.org<br />www.twitter.com/bspalabs<br />www.slideshare.net/bspalabs<br />www.linkedin.com/companies/bspa-labs<br />
  2. 2. Agenda<br />Motivation – why are we doing this?<br />Data Collection<br />Results<br />Questions and Further Research<br />Comments / Questions<br />
  3. 3. Why are we doing this?<br />Force improves the fingerprint image quality and performance<br />We have done a number of studies in fingerprint force, across 10 print, single print optical and capacitance slap and swipe. <br />Wanted to examine different force levels and how sensitive force sensor acquisition could be<br />
  4. 4. Four-fold motivation<br />Validating results from Kukula, et al. (2007)<br />Difference between auto-capture vs. force-capture<br />The effect of force-capture on time<br />User comfort level<br />
  5. 5. Data Collection Setup – Sensor Specifications<br />
  6. 6. Methodology – force capture<br />Examination of force and performance<br />Auto-capture in Verifinger 5.0<br />Manipulation of force through the SDK<br />1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, & 7.5 N with tolerance band of ±0.5N using force-capture method<br />Off line analysis using Verifinger 6.0<br />
  7. 7. Methodology - Timing <br />Throughput is important in an operational setting<br />What is the impact of force on timing<br />
  8. 8. Methodology – Comfort Level<br />Likert scale<br />
  9. 9. Methodology<br />
  10. 10. Data Collection Procedures<br />Collected data in accordance with our quality manual (approximates ISO 17025) <br />Consent forms approved by the IRB<br />Advertisements were posted around campus<br />Another data collection activity was ongoing in fingerprinting at the same time<br />Subjects were seated when they interacted with the fingerprint sensor<br />
  11. 11. Data Collection Procedures<br />24 fingerprint images were collected per subject<br />Three images for natural force using auto-capture method<br />Three images for each force levels (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, & 7.5 N with tolerance band of ±0.5N) using force-capture method<br />Survey<br />
  12. 12. Results<br />Sample description<br />Force banding<br />Performance<br />Throughput<br />Comfort levels<br />
  13. 13. Results - Subjects<br />Age Range Distribution<br />Subjects Distribution<br />
  14. 14. Results – Auto-capture Force Distribution<br />
  15. 15. Results – Force Distribution<br />Samples<br />
  16. 16. Results – Image Quality Scores (AWARE)<br />Descriptive Statistics of Image Quality Score<br />
  17. 17. Statistical Analysis – Hypothesis #1<br />Statistical Test #1 (ANOVA)<br />Null Hypothesis:<br />μNF= μ1.5 =μ2.5 =μ3.5 = μ4.5 = μ5.5 =μ6.5 =μ7.5<br />Alternate Hypothesis:<br />Not all μ are equal<br />
  18. 18. Statistical Analysis – Hypothesis #1<br />Critical value of alpha= 0.05 was chosen<br />P value was less than 0.05<br />Power is above 99%<br />Reject the null<br />
  19. 19. Statistical Analysis – Hypothesis #2<br />Statistical Test #2 (Tukey)<br />Null Hypothesis:<br />µi = µj <br />Alternate Hypothesis:<br />µi ≠ µj <br />where i = (NF,1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5)<br /> j = (NF,1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5)<br />
  20. 20. Results – Tukey’s HSD Test<br />Auto-capture image quality scores were similar to 1.5 and 2.5 N<br />
  21. 21. Results – Detection Error Tradeoff (DET)<br />
  22. 22. Results – False Reject Rate (FRR) at Fixed FAR 0.01%<br />FRR Across Force Levels<br />
  23. 23. Results – Biometric Subsystem Processing Time<br />
  24. 24. Results - Comfort Level<br />Comfort Level Average<br />
  25. 25. Results - Conclusion<br />Force impacts both image quality and performance.<br />By using force-capture acquisition method, the biometric subsystem processing time slightly increases.<br />Force level 5.5 N is recommended as the optimal force level to be used without sacrificing user’s comfort level.<br />
  26. 26. Any Questions?<br />Follow the discussion on the research blog after the conference<br />www.bspalabs.org/<br />
  27. 27. Authors and Primary Contact Information<br />Authors<br />Benny Senjaya<br />Graduate Researcher at BSPA Lab<br />bennysenjaya@gmail.com<br />Stephen Elliott, Ph.D.<br />BSPA Lab Director & Associate Professor<br />elliott@purdue.edu<br />Shimon Modi, Ph.D.<br />Visiting Scientist at C-DAC Mumbai<br />shimonmodi@gmail.com<br />Tae Bong Lee, Ph.D.<br />Professor at Kyungwon College<br />tblee@kyungwon.ac.kr<br />Contact Information<br />Stephen Elliott, Ph.D.<br />Associate Professor<br />Director of BSPA Labs<br />elliott@purdue.edu<br />

×