Search

Biometric recognition technology based on eye-movement dynamics has been in development for more than ten years. Different visual tasks, feature extraction and feature recognition methods are proposed to improve the performance of eye movement biometric system. However, the correct identification and verification rates, especially in long-term experiments, as well as the effects of visual tasks and eye trackers’ temporal and spatial resolution are still the foremost considerations in eye movement biometrics. With a focus on these issues, we proposed a new visual searching task for eye movement data collection and a new class of eye movement features for biometric recognition. In order to demonstrate the improvement of this visual searching task being used in eye movement biometrics, three other eye movement feature extraction methods were also tested on our eye movement datasets. Compared with the original results, all three methods yielded better results as expected. In addition, the biometric performance of these four feature extraction methods was also compared using the equal error rate (EER) and Rank-1 identification rate (Rank-1 IR), and the texture features introduced in this paper were ultimately shown to offer some advantages with regard to long-term stability and robustness over time and spatial precision. Finally, the results of different combinations of these methods with a score-level fusion method indicated that multi-biometric methods perform better in most cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fingerprint recognition plays an important role in many commercial applications and is used by millions of people every day, e.g. for unlocking mobile phones. Fingerprint image segmentation is typically the first processing step of most fingerprint algorithms and it divides an image into foreground, the region of interest, and background. Two types of error can occur during this step which both have a negative impact on the recognition performance: ‘true’ foreground can be labeled as background and features like minutiae can be lost, or conversely ‘true’ background can be misclassified as foreground and spurious features can be introduced. The contribution of this paper is threefold: firstly, we propose a novel factorized directional bandpass (FDB) segmentation method for texture extraction based on the directional Hilbert transform of a Butterworth bandpass (DHBB) filter interwoven with soft-thresholding. Secondly, we provide a manually marked ground truth segmentation for 10560 images as an evaluation benchmark. Thirdly, we conduct a systematic performance comparison between the FDB method and four of the most often cited fingerprint segmentation algorithms showing that the FDB segmentation method clearly outperforms these four widely used methods. The benchmark and the implementation of the FDB method are made publicly available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manual offline analysis, of a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image, is a time consuming process and requires continuous human intervention and efforts. This paper presents an image processing based method for automated offline analyses of SEM images. To this end, our strategy relies on a two-stage process, viz. texture analysis and quantification. The method involves a preprocessing step, aimed at the noise removal, in order to avoid false edges. For texture analysis, the proposed method employs a state of the art Curvelet transform followed by segmentation through a combination of entropy filtering, thresholding and mathematical morphology (MM). The quantification is carried out by the application of a box-counting algorithm, for fractal dimension (FD) calculations, with the ultimate goal of measuring the parameters, like surface area and perimeter. The perimeter is estimated indirectly by counting the boundary boxes of the filled shapes. The proposed method, when applied to a representative set of SEM images, not only showed better results in image segmentation but also exhibited a good accuracy in the calculation of surface area and perimeter. The proposed method outperforms the well-known Watershed segmentation algorithm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]