2018
DOI: 10.1002/spy2.44
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

State of the art and perspectives on traditional and emerging biometrics: A survey

Abstract: The last three decades have seen a shift and impressive progress in the biometric technologies landscape. Several major real‐world applications of biometrics have been released and are currently being used around the world. At the same time, several new biometrics modalities have emerged and have started making an impact in securing sensitive data, information, and systems. We present in this paper a survey of traditional and emerging biometrics by emphasizing their connection to human body parts, behavior, an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 164 publications
(211 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These metrics attempt to identify the mechanism's sensitivity in distinguishing between genuine users and imposters.Over time, variability in biometric features sets poses serious challenges for biometric systems to genuinely identify genuine users from imposters or vice versa. Previous research [32][33][34][35] on biometric systems has used performance indices such as the False Acceptance Rate (FAR), False Rejection Rate (FRR), and Equal Error Rate (EER) to evaluate the performance of biometric mechanisms. FAR and FRR, on the other hand, are evaluated by varying the score threshold to the similarity score.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These metrics attempt to identify the mechanism's sensitivity in distinguishing between genuine users and imposters.Over time, variability in biometric features sets poses serious challenges for biometric systems to genuinely identify genuine users from imposters or vice versa. Previous research [32][33][34][35] on biometric systems has used performance indices such as the False Acceptance Rate (FAR), False Rejection Rate (FRR), and Equal Error Rate (EER) to evaluate the performance of biometric mechanisms. FAR and FRR, on the other hand, are evaluated by varying the score threshold to the similarity score.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, what used to require sophisticated machinery can now be done with the average smart-phone (Galdi et al, 2016). In addition to these identification biometrics, smartphones can now capture upwards of two thousand behavioural biometrics (Traore et al, 2018). These behavioural biometrics include how the device is held, how the individual applies pressure when typing, scrolling style and toggling between fields (Hinckley et al, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the methods of person verification utilizes the near-infrared (NIR) images of the finger vascular system, which is proved to contain a set of features unique for each human. External features, like a fingerprint, finger shape, skin folds and lunulas are accompanied by the internal features-the structure of a vascular system [1]. Finger tissues and blood have different absorption coefficients for various light wavelengths which phenomenon allows for observation of both types of features in NIR images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%