4.3 Article

When Scents Help Me Remember My Password

期刊

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3469889

关键词

Olfactory media; authentication; olfactory passwords; information recall; QoE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a new authentication process utilizing olfactory data as cues in the login phase. By developing the PassSmell application that combines words and olfactory media as passwords, it demonstrates the potential of olfactory authentication in future applications.
Current authentication processes overwhelmingly rely on audiovisual data, comprising images, text or audio. However, the use of olfactory data (scents) has remained unexploited in the authentication process, notwithstanding their verified potential to act as cues for information recall. Accordingly, in this paper, a new authentication process is proposed in which olfactory media are used as cues in the login phase. To this end, PassSmell, a proof of concept authentication application, is developed in which words and olfactory media act as passwords and olfactory passwords, respectively. In order to evaluate the potential of PassSmell, two different versions were developed, namely one which was olfactory-enhanced and another which did not employ olfactory media. Forty-two participants were invited to take part in the experiment, evenly split into a control and experimental group. For assessment purposes, we recorded the time taken to logon as well as the number of failed/successful login attempts; we also asked users to complete a Quality of Experience (QoE) questionnaire. In terms of time taken, a significant difference was found between the experimental and the control groups, as determined by an independent sample t-test. Similar results were found with respect to average scores and the number of successful attempts. Regarding user QoE, having olfactory media with words influenced the users positively, emphasizing the potential of using this kind of authentication application in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据