4.7 Article

A comparative analysis of multi-biometrics performance in human and action recognition using silhouette thermal-face and skeletal data

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 170, 期 -, 页码 1-17

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2023.10.016

关键词

Behavioural biometrics; Energy images; Deep learning; Thermal face

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biometrics is a highly valued and extensively studied field that can recognize individuals based on their unique physical and behavioral differences. This study created a new biometrics database containing silhouette, thermal face, and skeletal data to improve recognition performance and reduce material costs.
Biometrics is a field that has been given importance in recent years and has been extensively studied. Biometrics can use physical and behavioural differences that are unique to individuals to recognize and identify them. Today, biometric information is used in many areas such as computer vision systems, entrance systems, security and recognition. In this study, a new biometrics database containing silhouette, thermal face and skeletal data based on the distance between the joints was created to be used in behavioural and physical biometrics studies. The fact that many cameras were used in previous studies increases both the processing intensity and the material cost. This study aimed to both increase the recognition performance and reduce material costs by adding thermal face data in addition to soft and behavioural biometrics with the optimum camera. The presented data set was created in accordance with both motion recognition and person identification. Various data loss scenarios and multi-biometrics approaches based on data fusion have been tried on the created data sets and the results have been given comparatively. In addition, the correlation coefficient of the motion frames method to obtain energy images from silhouette data was tested on this dataset and yielded high-accuracy results for both motion and person recognition.

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

4.7
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