(2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

40
BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and Innovation IMAGE QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION – THE IMPACT OF FINGER LOCATION Purdue University: Michael Brockly | Stephen Elliott

description

Presented at The 7th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA 2011), Sydney Australia, 21 Nov - 24 Nov 2011. The purpose of this presentation is to provide additional analysis of image quality and Henry Classification on Finger location on a single sensor. One hundred and sixty nine individuals provided six impressions of their left index, left middle, right index, and right middle fingers. The results show that there is significant difference in image quality, Henry classifications, and zoo animal distribution across the four finger locations under study. The results of this research show that location is an important consideration when developing enrollment best practices for single print systems.

Transcript of (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

Page 1: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

BIOMETRICS LABBiometric Standards, Performance and Assurance LaboratoryDepartment of Technology, Leadership and Innovation

IMAGE QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION – THE IMPACT OF FINGER LOCATIONPurdue University: Michael Brockly | Stephen Elliott

Page 2: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• How does Henry Classification differ across finger locations?

• Does image quality differ across finger locations?

• Does minutiae count differ across finger locations

• Does finger location impact performance?

Page 3: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RESPONSIVE

• Further the understanding of Henry Classifications

• Refine zoo plot analysis• Support ideal finger theories based on

image quality and minutiae

Page 4: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

SENSOR

• Identix DFR-2080• Optical touch• 500 dpi• 15mm x 15mm

platen

Page 5: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

SUBJECTS

• Examined a subject pool of 190 users.• Collected from a multi-sensor study• Many subjects were missing images due

to error, either data collection or Failure to Acquire (FTA)

• Reduced the subject pool to 169 subjects to ensure equal numbers of fingers

Page 6: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

SUBJECT SUBSET

• 169 subjects• 118 male, 49 female• 148 office workers, 16 manual laborers

6154534947434038373635343331302928272625242322212019

40

30

20

10

0

Age

Frequency

User distribution of age

Page 7: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

SUBJECT SUBSET

• Each subject provided six successful impressions for each of:• Left index• Right index• Left middle• Right middle

• 4,080 samples in total

Page 8: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

HENRY CLASSIFICATIONS

• Neurotechnology Megamatcher v4.0.0

• Whorl• Left Slant Loop• Right Slant Loop• Tented Arch• Plain Arch• Scar

Page 9: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

HENRY CLASSIFICATIONS

Henry LI LM RI RM

  # % # % # % # %

Whorl 322 31.6 235 23.0 301 29.5 212 20.8

Left Slant Loop

421 41.3 675 66.2 259 25.4 46 70.0

Right Slant Loop

190 18.6 35 3.4 366 35.9 714 4.5

Tented Arch 54 5.3 46 4.5 24 5.2 5 2.8

Plain Arch 32 3.1 24 2.4 39 3.8 14 1.4

Scar 1 0.1 5 0.5 2 0.2 5 0.5

Page 10: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT INDEX

Henry LI LM RI RM

  # % # % # % # %

Whorl 322 31.6 235 23.0 301 29.5 212 20.8

Left Slant Loop

421 41.3 675 66.2 259 25.4 46 70.0

Right Slant Loop

190 18.6 35 3.4 366 35.9 714 4.5

Tented Arch 54 5.3 46 4.5 24 5.2 5 2.8

Plain Arch 32 3.1 24 2.4 39 3.8 14 1.4

Scar 1 0.1 5 0.5 2 0.2 5 0.5

Page 11: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT MIDDLE

Henry LI LM RI RM

  # % # % # % # %

Whorl 322 31.6 235 23.0 301 29.5 212 20.8

Left Slant Loop

421 41.3 675 66.2 259 25.4 46 70.0

Right Slant Loop

190 18.6 35 3.4 366 35.9 714 4.5

Tented Arch 54 5.3 46 4.5 24 5.2 5 2.8

Plain Arch 32 3.1 24 2.4 39 3.8 14 1.4

Scar 1 0.1 5 0.5 2 0.2 5 0.5

Page 12: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX

Henry LI LM RI RM

  # % # % # % # %

Whorl 322 31.6 235 23.0 301 29.5 212 20.8

Left Slant Loop

421 41.3 675 66.2 259 25.4 46 70.0

Right Slant Loop

190 18.6 35 3.4 366 35.9 714 4.5

Tented Arch 54 5.3 46 4.5 24 5.2 5 2.8

Plain Arch 32 3.1 24 2.4 39 3.8 14 1.4

Scar 1 0.1 5 0.5 2 0.2 5 0.5

Page 13: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT MIDDLE

Henry LI LM RI RM

  # % # % # % # %

Whorl 322 31.6 235 23.0 301 29.5 212 20.8

Left Slant Loop

421 41.3 675 66.2 259 25.4 46 70.0

Right Slant Loop

190 18.6 35 3.4 366 35.9 714 4.5

Tented Arch 54 5.3 46 4.5 24 5.2 5 2.8

Plain Arch 32 3.1 24 2.4 39 3.8 14 1.4

Scar 1 0.1 5 0.5 2 0.2 5 0.5

Page 14: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

IMAGE QUALITY

• Aware M1 Pack v3.0.0

• Fingerprint image quality is a prediction of a matching software’s performance

Page 15: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

IMAGE QUALITY

Page 16: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX

Page 17: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT MIDDLE

Page 18: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT INDEX

Page 19: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT MIDDLE

Page 20: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

MINUTIAE COUNT

• Aware M1 Pack v3.0.0

• The count of local ridge characteristics

Page 21: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

MINUTIAE COUNT

Page 22: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT INDEX/MIDDLE

Page 23: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX/MIDDLE

Page 24: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

IMAGE QUALITY AND MINUTIAE

Page 25: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ZOO PLOT

• Neurotechnology Megamatcher v4.0.0• Performix v3.1.9

• Calculated by a minutiae-based matcher

Page 26: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ZOO PLOT OVERVIEW

• Maps the relationship between a user’s genuine and imposter match results defines four additional classes of worms, doves, chameleons, and phantoms

Page 27: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

CLASSIFICATIONS OF ANIMALS

• Chameleons always appear similar to others, receiving high match scores for all verifications. Chameleons rarely cause false rejects, but are likely to cause false accepts.

• Phantoms lead to low match scores regardless of who they are being matched against; themselves or others.

Page 28: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

CLASSIFICATIONS OF ANIMALS

• Doves are the best possible users in biometric systems. They matching well against themselves and poorly against others.

• Worms are the worst users of a biometric system. Where present, worms are the cause of a disproportionate number of a system’s errors.

Page 29: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ADVANTAGES OF ZOO PLOTS OVER ROC/DET CURVES

• Traditional methods of evaluation focus on collective error statistics such as Equal Error Rates (EERs) and Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves.

• These statistics are useful for evaluating systems globally, but ignore problems associated with individuals and subgroups of the population. The biometric menagerie is a formal approach to user-centric analysis.

Page 30: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ADVANTAGES OF ZOO PLOTS OVER ROC/DET CURVES

• In many real world situations it has been observed that user groups performance varies based on any number of demographic factors.

• Researchers and system integrators are interested in identifying which of these groups are performing poorly as they may be causing a disproportionate number of verification errors.

Page 31: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ZOO PLOT

Page 32: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ZOO PLOT

Worms

Phantoms

Chameleons

Doves

Page 33: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

ZOO ANIMAL BY LOCATION

Page 34: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX

Page 35: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX

Page 36: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

RIGHT INDEX

Page 37: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

LEFT MIDDLE

Page 38: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

FUTURE WORK

• Determine if these results hold true for other fingerprint sensors

• Deeper analysis of the impact of poor performing animals

Page 39: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

CONTACT INFORMATION

• Michael Brockly• Undergraduate Researcher at BSPA Lab• [email protected]

• Stephen Elliott PhD• Associate Professor at BSPA Lab• [email protected]

Page 40: (2011) Image Quality, Performance, and Classification - the Impact of Finger Location

BIOMETRICS LABBiometric Standards, Performance and Assurance LaboratoryDepartment of Technology, Leadership and Innovation

Questions?