(2007) Performance Analysis for Multi Sensor Fingerprint Recognition System
-
Upload
international-center-for-biometric-research -
Category
Technology
-
view
288 -
download
3
description
Transcript of (2007) Performance Analysis for Multi Sensor Fingerprint Recognition System
Collaborative Project with Purdue UniversitySince August 2006
Analysis onAnalysis on Finger Preference of Users for
Fi i t R iti S tFingerprint Recognition Systems
Jihyun Moon and Hale Kim, Inha Univ.Matt Young and Steve Elliott, Purdue Univ.
February 1, 2007
2007 BERC Workshop
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Contentsre
fere
nc
IntroductionTest Protocol
n a
nd
Pr
Data Collection Analysis Results
bit
uati
on y
Conclusion and Future Work
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
2
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Introductionre
fere
nc
BackgroundUser habituation is a concept and term that is widely
d ithi th bi t i i d t i ll th t f
n a
nd
Pr used within the biometric industry, especially that of
the biometric standards community, without a detailed definition or means necessary to measure
bit
uati
on y
and determine habituation.
s o
n H
ab Purpose
To assess the concept of “habituation” for biometric systems fingerprints in particular for this study
An
aly
sis systems, fingerprints in particular for this study.
Furthermore, to investigate the affects of handedness and finger preference in discussing “habituation”.A
3
g p g
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Test Protocolre
fere
nc Expected Measurements
Demographic information PURDUE & INHA
n a
nd
Pr Handedness PURDUE & INHA
Finger preference PURDUE & INHAImage quality (NFIQ) INHA
bit
uati
on Image quality (NFIQ) INHA
Condition: Use-ness of Hand cream
Region of Overlap INHA
s o
n H
ab
g pMatching Performance (BOZORTH3) INHAStatistical analysis
An
aly
sis
ROC curves in time series for each groupROC curves for inter-group analysis (except for G4)Distributions in time seriesA
4
IQ, OL
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Test Protocol(INHA)re
fere
nc
SensorU.Are.U4000 by DigitalPersona
n a
nd
Pr
SubjectAt least 15 persons per each group
bit
uati
on
Procedure (enrolled, attempt)Group# Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6
1 7 i 3 i 3 i 3 i 3 i 3 i
s o
n H
ab 1 7 images
3 images3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images
2 7 images3 images
3 images
An
aly
sis 3 images
3 7 images3 images
3 images
A
5
4 7 images3 images/3 images
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Test Protocolre
fere
nc
Fingerprint Image Filename conventionSSS-F-I-W#.bmp
n a
nd
Pr Where SSS is the subject #, F is the finger # (1-3), I is the
image # (1-10 or 1-3), and W# is the week # (1-6). Purdue will use the subject #s from 1-99. Inha will use the
bit
uati
on subject #s from 100 – 199 (or greater as needed).
Restrictions
s o
n H
ab Restrictions
Role of the supervisorThe supervisor shall inform the users of the instructions con
An
aly
sis
tained in the first point in the delimitations section. However; the supervisor shall not engage in any physical assistance of any sort while the user is submitting finger images.
A
6
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(INHA)re
fere
nc Subjects
100 120SubjectID
126 143SubjectID
Group1 Group2
n a
nd
Pr 100 120
101 121102 122105 123108 124111 125
126 143131 144132 145133 146136 147137 148
bit
uati
on 112 127
113 128114 129118
Total Subjects 19
138 149139 150140 151141 152
Total Subjects 20
s o
n H
ab
153 164 174154 165 175155 166 176
SubjectID183 193 203184 194 204185 195 205
SubjectIDGroup3 Group4
An
aly
sis 155 166 176
156 167 177157 168 178159 169 179160 170 180161 171 181
185 195 205186 196 206187 197188 198189 199190 200A
7
162 172 182163 173
Total Subjects 29
191 201192 202
Total Subjects 24
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(BSPA)re
fere
nc Subjects
SubjectID
Group1 Group2
SubjectID
n a
nd
Pr
2 133 154 1769
SubjectID18 3019 3121 692224
SubjectID
bit
uati
on 11
12Total Subjects 10
2526
Total Subjects 10
s o
n H
ab
Group3 Group4
28 4235 44
SubjectID50 5952 60
SubjectID
An
aly
sis 35 44
36 4637 4738 4839 7140
S
52 6053 6555565758
SA
8
Total Subjects 13 Total Subjects 10
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(INHA)re
fere
nc
ProcedureBefore adjustment
n a
nd
Pr
Group# Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6
1 10 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images
2 10 images 3 images
bit
uati
on 2 10 images 3 images
3 10 images 3 images
4 10 images/3 images
s o
n H
ab
After adjustmentGroup# Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7
/3 images
An
aly
sis p
1 10 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images
2 10 images 3 images
3 10 images 3 imagesA
9
3 10 images 3 images
4 10 images/3 images
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(BSPA)re
fere
nc
ProcedureBefore adjustment
n a
nd
Pr
Group# Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6
1 10 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images
2 10 images 3 images
bit
uati
on 2 10 images 3 images
3 10 images 3 images
4 10 images/3 images
s o
n H
ab
After adjustmentGroup# Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7
/3 images
An
aly
sis p
1 10 images 3 images 3 images 3 images 3 images
2 10 images 3 images
3 10 images 3 imagesA
10
3 10 images 3 images
4 10 images/3 images
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(INHA)re
fere
nc
Fingerprint Image Filename convention
n a
nd
Pr Before adjustment: SSS-F-I-W#.bmp
After adjustment: SSS-F-II-#.bmp
File Size (Adjustment)
bit
uati
on File Size (Adjustment)
Fix size to Width 320 and Height 352
Number of Images
s o
n H
ab Group Images per subject Subjects Total
1 75 19 14252 39 20 7803 39 29 1131
An
aly
sis
4 39 24 936
A
11
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collection(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Fingerprint Image Filename convention
n a
nd
Pr Before adjustment: SSS-F-I-W#.bmp
After adjustment: SSS-F-II-#.bmp
File Size (Adjustment)
bit
uati
on File Size (Adjustment)
Fix size to Width 320 and Height 352
Number of Images
s o
n H
ab
Group Images per subject Subjects Total1 66 10 6602 39 10 3903 39 13 507
An
aly
sis
4 39 10 390
A
12
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collectionre
fere
nc
Environment1 – CVLab
n a
nd
Pr
bit
uati
on
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
13
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collectionre
fere
nc
Environment2 – Computer Room 424
n a
nd
Pr
bit
uati
on
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
14
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Data Collectionre
fere
nc
Forms for collecting information
n a
nd
Pr
bit
uati
on
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
15
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
G 1 19Total # of subjects Gender Male Female
G 1 18 1
(persons) (persons)
n a
nd
Pr Group1 19
Group2 20Group3 29Group4 24
Group1 18 1Group2 16 4Group3 28 1Group4 24 0
(persons)93.5%
bit
uati
on Ethnicity Indian etc. Asian Black Hispanic etc. White Other
Group1 0 19 0 0 0 0Group2 0 20 0 0 0 0Group3 0 29 0 0 0 0Group4 0 24 0 0 0 0
100 0%
s o
n H
ab
Handedness Right Left AmbidextrousGroup1 16 2 1Group2 16 1 3Group3 26 2 1
(persons) <고찰>
1. 성별 구성에 있어서 남성의 비율이 월등히 큼
2. 모두 동양인임 대부분 오른손잡이임
3 남성이 대부분이기 때문에 피부 보습을 위한
100.0%
An
aly
sis
Hand cream Yes NoGroup1 6 13Group2 8 12
Used before Yes NoGroup1 3 16Group2 3 17
Group4 23 0 1
(persons) (persons)
3. 남성이 대부분이기 때문에 피부 보습을 위한조처를 하지 않는 경우가 상대적으로 많음
4. 지문 인식 시스템을 사용해본 경험이 없는사람들로 참여자를 구성하고자 하였으나, 면접후 일부에서 사용 경험이 있었던 것으로 나타남
88.0%
A
16
Group2 8 12Group3 9 20Group4 6 18
Group2 3 17Group3 4 25Group4 3 21
68.5% 85.9%
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Group1 10Total # of subjects
(persons) (persons)
Gender Male FemaleGroup1 8 2
Summary on Personal Data
n a
nd
Pr Group1 10
Group2 10Group3 13Group4 10
(persons)86.0%
Group1 8 2Group2 8 2Group3 12 1Group4 9 1
bit
uati
on Ethnicity Indian etc. Asian Black Hispanic etc. White Other
Group1 0 1 0 0 9 0Group2 0 0 0 0 10 0Group3 0 0 0 0 13 0Group4 1 0 0 0 9 0
95 3%
s o
n H
ab
Handedness Right Left AmbidextrousGroup1 9 0 1Group2 8 1 1Group3 13 0 0
(persons) <고찰>
1. 성별 구성에 있어서 남성의 비율이 월등히 큼
2. 모두 동양인임 대부분 오른손잡이임
3 남성이 대부분이기 때문에 피부 보습을 위한
95.3%
An
aly
sis Group4 10 0 0
(persons) (persons)
3. 남성이 대부분이기 때문에 피부 보습을 위한조처를 하지 않는 경우가 상대적으로 많음
4. 지문 인식 시스템을 사용해본 경험이 없는사람들로 참여자를 구성하고자 하였으나, 면접후 일부에서 사용 경험이 있었던 것으로 나타남
93.0%
Hand cream Yes NoGroup1 3 7Group2 2 8
Used before Yes NoGroup1 6 4Group2 7 3A
17
74.4% 51.2%
Group2 2 8Group3 2 11Group4 4 6
Group2 7 3Group3 4 9Group4 5 5
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Total # of subjects
n a
nd
Pr Total # of subjects
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on Group1
21%Group426%
s o
n H
ab
Group222%
Group331%
An
aly
sis 31%
A
18
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Total # of subjects
n a
nd
Pr Total # of subjects
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on Group1
23%Group4
23%
s o
n H
ab
Group223%Group3
31%
An
aly
sis
A
19
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Gender distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Gender distributions of 4 groups
30
35
nsMale Female
bit
uati
on
15
20
25
30
r of
per
son
s o
n H
ab
0
5
10
G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
20
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Gender distributions of 4 groups
Summary on Personal Data
n a
nd
Pr Gender distributions of 4 groups
15
s
Male Female
bit
uati
on
10
er o
f pe
rson
s
s o
n H
ab
0
5
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
21
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Handedness distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Handedness distributions of 4 groups
30
nsRight Left Ambidextrous
bit
uati
on
15
20
25
r of
per
son
s o
n H
ab
0
5
10
G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
22
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Handedness distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Handedness distributions of 4 groups
15
s
Right Left Ambidextrous
bit
uati
on
10
er o
f pe
rson
s
s o
n H
ab
0
5
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Gro up#
A
23
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Hand cream useness distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Hand- cream useness distributions of 4 groups
30
nsYes No
bit
uati
on
15
20
25
r of
per
son
s o
n H
ab
0
5
10
G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
24
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Hand cream useness distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Hand- cream useness distributions of 4 groups
15
sYes No
bit
uati
on
10
er o
f pe
rson
s
s o
n H
ab
0
5
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
25
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Sensor useness distributions of 4 groups
Summary on Personal Data
n a
nd
Pr Sensor useness distributions of 4 groups
30
nsYes No
bit
uati
on
15
20
25
r of
per
son
s o
n H
ab
0
5
10
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
26
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Summary on Personal Data
Sensor useness distributions of 4 groups
n a
nd
Pr Sensor useness distributions of 4 groups
15
s
Yes No
bit
uati
on
10
r of
per
sons
s o
n H
ab
0
5
Num
be
An
aly
sis Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Group#
A
27
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Resultsre
fere
nc
Summary on Environmental Data (average)Temperature Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6G 1 26 9 27 6 27 2 27 5 29 7 26 7
(°C)
n a
nd
Pr Group1 26.9 27.6 27.2 27.5 29.7 26.7
Group2 27.3 26.8Group3 28.9 27.6Group4 25.4
(%)
bit
uati
on
Moisture Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6Group1 41.5 39 35.5 40.5 38.5 49Group2 43 51.9Group3 42 29.6Group4 54.2
(%)
s o
n H
ab G oup 5
An
aly
sis
A
28
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference Result
Finger Preference - 1st Finger
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preference - 1st Finger
1618
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on
8101214
eque
ncy
s o
n H
ab
0246
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
29
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference Result
Finger Preference - 1st Finger
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preference 1st Finger
12
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on
6
8
10
eque
ncy
s o
n H
ab
0
2
4
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
30
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference Result – cont.
Finger Preference 2nd Finger
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preference - 2nd Finger
12
14
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on
6
8
10
12
eque
ncy
s o
n H
ab
0
2
4
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
31
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preperence 2nd Finger
Finger Preference Result – cont.
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preperence - 2nd Finger
6
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on
4
eque
ncy
s o
n H
ab
0
2
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
32
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference Result – cont.
Finger Preference 3rd Finger<고찰>
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preference - 3rd Finger
12
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
1. 지문 영상 수집 실험 전 선택한 선호 손가락은, 사용자들의 무의식에 의한 선택에 기반한 경우가많았다고 생각됨
2. 오른손잡이가 많았던 관계로 무의식적으로오른손 세 손가락을 선택하는 경우가 많았음
bit
uati
on
6
8
10
eque
ncy
오른손 세 손가락을 선택하는 경우가 많았음
3. 특히, 첫 번째 선호 손가락은 엄지와 검지인경우가 대부분이었으며, 순번이 뒤로 갈 수록선택에 있어서 별 다른 기준이 없는 것처럼 보임
s o
n H
ab
0
2
4Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
33
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference 3rd Finger
Finger Preference Result – cont.
n a
nd
Pr Finger Preference - 3rd Finger
6
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
bit
uati
on
4
quen
cy
s o
n H
ab
0
2Fre
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
34
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)(persons)
refe
ren
c
Finger Preference Change
After Finger Preference Change
Prefernecechange Yes No
Group1 9 10Group2 6 14Group3 17 12
(persons)
n a
nd
Pr g g
25
Finger1 Finger2 Finger3
pGroup4 8 16
bit
uati
on
10
15
20
requ
ency
s o
n H
ab
0
5
10F
An
aly
sis
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLFinger Index<고찰>
1. 센서 사용 후의 선호도 변화를 살펴 본 결과검지(LI, RI)로의 선호도 변화가 뚜렷해 짐.A
35
2. 양손 엄지(LT, RT) 및 검지(LI, RI)로의선호도 변화가 전체의 약 80.8%를 차지함.
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)(persons)
refe
ren
c
Finger Preference Change(persons)
After Finger Preference Change
Preferencechange Yes No
Group1 3 7Group2 4 6Group3 5 8
n a
nd
Pr g g
78
Finger1 Finger2 Finger3
Group3 5 8Group4 8 2
bit
uati
on
3456
Freq
uenc
y
s o
n H
ab
0123
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
F
An
aly
sis LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
A
36
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference Change – occurrence tableFinger1B f LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
After preference changed Finger2B f LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
After preference changed
n a
nd
Pr Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
LL 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LI 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LI 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0LT 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0
bit
uati
on RT 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 1 0 0
RI 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RT 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0RI 0 0 1 5 1 2 2 4 0 1
RM 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
s o
n H
ab Finger3
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLLL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0LI 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0
After preference changed AllBefore LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
LL 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0LI 0 0 0 5 1 3 3 1 0 0
After preference changed
An
aly
sis LI 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0
LT 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0RT 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0RI 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0
RM 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 3 2 0RR 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
LI 0 0 0 5 1 3 3 1 0 0LT 1 0 0 6 2 1 3 1 0 0RT 0 0 1 3 1 1 17 2 0 0RI 0 0 1 6 2 7 9 5 0 1
RM 0 0 1 5 2 4 1 3 2 0RR 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0RL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0A
37
RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
80.8%
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Finger1 After preference changed Finger2 After preference changed
Finger Preference Change – occurrence table
n a
nd
Pr Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0RT 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LI 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0RT 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 4 0 0
bit
uati
on RT 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0
RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RT 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 4 0 0RI 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 0
RM 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 14 0 0RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Finger3 After preference changed All After preference changed
s o
n H
ab Finger3
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0LI 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
After preference changed AllBefore LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0LI 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0
After preference changed
An
aly
sis RT 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 0
RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RM 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 7 2 0RR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RT 0 0 1 0 2 12 7 5 2 0RI 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 5 1 0
RM 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 23 2 0RR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A
38
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(INHA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference ChangeAll
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL TotalLL 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 6
After preference changed
n a
nd
Pr LL 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 6
LR 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2LM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 5LI 0 0 0 5 1 3 3 1 0 0 13LT 1 0 0 6 2 1 3 1 0 0 14RT 0 0 1 3 1 1 17 2 0 0 25RI 0 0 1 6 2 7 9 5 0 1 31
bit
uati
on RI 0 0 1 6 2 7 9 5 0 1 31
RM 0 0 1 5 2 4 1 3 2 0 18RR 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 4RL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Total 1 0 4 27 13 22 35 15 2 1 120
s o
n H
ab Distributions of before/ after preference change
35
40
Before After
An
aly
sis
10
15
20
25
30
Freq
uenc
y
A
39
0
5
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RL
Finger Index
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results(BSPA)re
fere
nc
Finger Preference ChangeAll
Before LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
After preference changed
n a
nd
Pr LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0LI 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0LT 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0RT 0 0 1 0 2 12 7 5 2 0
bit
uati
on RI 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 5 1 0
RM 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 23 2 0RR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0RL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Di t ib ti f b f / ft f h
s o
n H
ab Distributions of before/ after preference change
354045
y
Before After
An
aly
sis
5101520253035
Freq
uenc
y
A
40
05
LL LR LM LI LT RT RI RM RR RLFinger Index
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results – Habituation re
fere
nc
Foreground Ratio (F)
N f d
Number of pixels in foreground area
Denominator
Numerator
n a
nd
Pr (%)100×
×=
HWN
F foreground
Image width(=320)
Image height(=352)
Overlapped area
bit
uati
on
Sample Foregrounds of 4 Groups
0.25
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
s o
n H
ab
0.15
0.2
uenc
y
Enrolled sample Tested sample
An
aly
sis
0.05
0.1Freq
u
A
41
00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ratio of area
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results – HabituationDenominator
refe
ren
c
Region of Overlap: Method1
lNNumber of pixels in overlapped area
Denominator
Numerator
n a
nd
Pr (%)1001
_
×=enrolledfg
overlap
NN
MNumber of pixels inforeground area of enrolled image
Overlapped area
bit
uati
on enrolled image
M1: OA/Seg_Enrolled
0.25
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
s o
n H
ab
0.15
0.2
uenc
y
Enrolled sample Tested sample
An
aly
sis
0.05
0.1Freq
u
A
42
00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Score
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results – Habituationre
fere
nc
Region of Overlap: Method2
(%)1002 ×= overlapNM
n a
nd
Pr (%)1002
__
×−+ overlaptestedfgenrolledfg NNN
M
Number of pixels in overlapped areaNumber of pixels inforeground area of tested image
Number of pixels inforeground area ofenrolled image
bit
uati
on enrolled image
M2: OA/ (Seg_Enrolled+Seg_Tested- OA)
0.25
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4Denominator
Numerator
s o
n H
ab
0.15
0.2
uenc
y
An
aly
sis
0.05
0.1Freq
u
Overlapped area
A
43
00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ScoreEnrolled sample Tested sample
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results – Habituationre
fere
nc
Region of Overlap: Method3
(%)1003 imageoverlap NNM
Number of pixels in overlapped areaNumber of pixels in whole image
n a
nd
Pr (%)1003
__
××=enrolledfg
image
enrolledfg
overlap
NNM
Number of pixels in foreground area of enrolled image
bit
uati
on
M3: M1/Foreground_Enrolled
0.25
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
s o
n H
ab
0.15
0.2
uenc
y
An
aly
sis
0.05
0.1Freq
u
A
44
00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Score
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Analysis Results – Habituationre
fere
nc
For All GroupsAnalysis results for Group1
Foreground of samples M1(OA/Enrolled)M2(OA/ (Enrolled+Tested- OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
Analysis results for Group2
Foreground of samples M1(OA/Enrolled)M2(OA/ (Enrolled+Tested- OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
n a
nd
Pr
0.15
0.2
0.25
eque
ncy
M2(OA/ (Enrolled Tested OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
0.15
0.2
0.25
eque
ncy
M2(OA/ (Enrolled Tested OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
bit
uati
on
0
0.05
0.1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Ratio of area
Fre
0
0.05
0.1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Ratio of area
Fre
s o
n H
ab
Analysis results for Group3
0.25
Foreground of samples M1(OA/Enrolled)M2(OA/ (Enrolled+Tested- OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
Analysis results for Group4
0.3
Foreground of samples M1(OA/Enrolled)M2(OA/ (Enrolled+Tested- OA) M3(M1/Foreground Enrolled)
An
aly
sis
0.1
0.15
0.2
Freq
uenc
y
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25Fr
eque
ncy
A
45
0
0.05
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Ratio of area
0
0.05
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Ratio of area
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Observationsre
fere
nc
Little difference in distributions of personal information between Purdue and Inha U i iti t th
n a
nd
Pr Universities except the sensor useness
may affect the analysis results on habituation.
bit
uati
on
As users get experienced, they prefer right or left index fingers most
s o
n H
ab left index fingers most.
This particular sensor becomes inconvenient to
An
aly
sis This particular sensor becomes inconvenient to
use thumb fingers depending on the placement condition.A
46
condition.
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Conclusionsre
fere
nc
Finger preferences of users for fingerprint sensor exist, and the preferences of Asians and W t it i il
n a
nd
Pr Westerns are quite similar.
bit
uati
on Exterior design of a fingerprint sensor gives an
influence to the finger preference of users.
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
47
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Future Worksre
fere
nc
Habituation analysis on data collected during the experiments
n a
nd
Pr Image quality distributions of individual groups
Inter-week Overlap ratio distributions of individual groups
bit
uati
on groups
ROC curves in time series for each groupSame-week Inter-group ROC curves
s o
n H
ab g p
Comparison of habituation results with
An
aly
sis p
preference results
A
48
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Comparisonre
fere
nc
Based on transferred data BSPA INHA Comment
# of subjects (G1) 13 19 2 groups in BSPA are not satisfied protocol.# of subjects (G2) 16 20
n a
nd
Pr # of subjects (G2) 16 20
# of subjects (G3) 15 29
# of subjects (G4) 10 24
# of images/finger (G1) 15 25 BSPA did not give 7 images
bit
uati
on # of images/finger (G1) 15 25 BSPA did not give 7 images
per group, which are used for enrollment process. Moreover in case of Group1, BSPA collected image only 5 times
# of images/finger (G2) 6 13
# of images/finger (G3) 6 13
# f i /fi (G4) 6 13
s o
n H
ab collected image only 5 times.# of images/finger (G4) 6 13
Total # of images 1323 4272 About 3.23 times
An
aly
sis
A
49
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Comparisonre
fere
nc
Based on transferred data BSPA INHA Comment
# of subjects (G1) 13 19 2 groups in BSPA are not satisfied protocol.# of subjects (G2) 16 20
n a
nd
Pr # of subjects (G2) 16 20
# of subjects (G3) 15 29
# of subjects (G4) 10 24
# of images/finger (G1) 15 25 BSPA did not give 7 images
bit
uati
on # of images/finger (G1) 15 25 BSPA did not give 7 images
per group, which are used for enrollment process. Moreover in case of Group1, BSPA collected image only 5 times
# of images/finger (G2) 6 13
# of images/finger (G3) 6 13
# of images/finger (G4) 6 13
s o
n H
ab collected image only 5 times.# of images/finger (G4) 6 13
Total # of images 1323 4272 About 3.23 times
# of ROL pairs (G1) 8190 34200 = # of images/finger x (# of images/finger - 1) x 3(fingers)# f ROL i (G2) 1440 9360
An
aly
sis images/finger 1) x 3(fingers)
x # of subjects# of ROL pairs (G2) 1440 9360
# of ROL pairs (G3) 1350 13752
# of ROL pairs (G4) 900 11232
A
50
Total # of ROL pairs 11880 68544 About 5.77 times
eClass note for the 1st term of 2005
Comparisonre
fere
nc
Based on transferred data BSPA INHA Comment
Size of heightVarious 352
Height of BSPA was fixed to 320, which is the
n a
nd
Pr minimum.
# of iterations for G15 6
Durations are the same as 6 weeks between the first and the last.
bit
uati
on the last.
# of iterations for G2~4 2 2
s o
n H
ab
An
aly
sis
A
51