Optical Coherence Tomography for Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection

Moolla, Yaseen; Darlow, Luke Nicholas; Sharma, Ameeth; Singh, Ann; Merwe, Johan van der

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92627-8_3

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the utilised capture device does not acquire the fingerprint for biometric recognition purpose. An extensive review on OCT for fingerprint PAD is published by Moolla et al [31]. It should be noted that the high costs of OCT scanners are an explicit disadvantage in contrast to other methods.…”

Section: Hardware-based Fingerprint Padmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anomaly Detection With Convolutional Autoencoders for Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection

Kolberg

Grimmer

Gomez‐Barrero

et al. 2021

IEEE Trans. Biom. Behav. Identity Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hardware-based Fingerprint Padmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anomaly Detection With Convolutional Autoencoders for Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection

Kolberg

Grimmer

Gomez‐Barrero

et al. 2021

IEEE Trans. Biom. Behav. Identity Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Based on work in literature [66][71] [72] [73], the use of blue lighting with polarized filters may reduce reflections and allow for a clearer fingerprint. Another alternative is the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) which could acquire the subsurface fingerprints in a contactless manner and is invariant to moisture and reflection on the surface of the skin [85][86] [87]. However, further improvements in speed, depth of field and component costs would need to be made before OCT is suitable for mass production and usage.…”

Section: ) Device Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biometric Recognition of Infants using Fingerprint, Iris, and Ear Biometrics

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biometric recognition is often used for adults for a variety of purposes where an individual's identity must be ascertained. However, the biometric recognition of children is an unsolved challenge. Solving this challenge could protect children from identity theft and identity fraud, help in reuniting lost children with their parents, improve border control systems in combatting child trafficking, and assist in electronic record-keeping systems. In order to begin the development of biometric recognition systems for children, researchers collected fingerprint, iris, and outer ear shape biometric information from infants. Each modality provides different challenges. Where possible, the performance of existing hardware and software that was developed for adults was assessed with infants. Where necessary, novel hardware or software was developed. For the ear modality, existing hardware and software which have previously been applied to adults were applied to children. For the iris modality, existing hardware was used to acquire the images, while adjustments to the existing preprocessing algorithms were applied to cater for the localisation and segmentation of infant irises. For the fingerprint modality, novel hardware and image processing software were developed to acquire fingerprints from infants, and convert the images into a format which is backward compatible with existing international standards for minutiae extraction and comparison. The advantages and disadvantages of using each of these modalities during the first year of life were compared, based on both qualitative assessments of usage, and quantitative assessments of performance. While there is no conclusively best modality, recommendations of usage for each modality were provided.

show abstract

“…Other hardware-based solutions, such as the capture means of biological signals of life, like blood flow and pulse rate detection [45] and electrocardiogram (ECG) [46] or electroencephalogram (EEG) signals [47] , are also discussed in the literature. However, all the biological signals either require expensive capture equipment or in some cases [48] may add a time delay to the user authentication process.…”

Section: Hardware-based Presentation Attack Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%