4.6 Article

ECG Biometric Authentication: A Comparative Analysis

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 117853-117866

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3004464

关键词

ECG biometric; authentication; segment; off-the-person; on-the-person; Kalman filter; feature extraction; ECG datasets

资金

  1. Internet-of-Things Security Project from the College of Engineering at San Jose State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Robust authentication and identification methods become an indispensable urgent task to protect the integrity of the devices and the sensitive data. Passwords have provided access control and authentication, but have shown their inherent vulnerabilities. The speed and convenience factor are what makes biometrics the ideal authentication solution as they could have a low probability of circumvention. To overcome the limitations of the traditional biometric systems, electrocardiogram (ECG) has received the most attention from the biometrics community due to the highly individualized nature of the ECG signals and the fact that they are ubiquitous and difficult to counterfeit. However, one of the main challenges in ECG-based biometric development is the lack of large ECG databases. In this paper, we contribute to creating a new large gallery off-the-person ECG datasets that can provide new opportunities for the ECG biometric research community. We explore the impact of filtering type, segmentation, feature extraction, and health status on ECG biometric by using the evaluation metrics. Our results have shown that our ECG biometric authentication outperforms existing methods lacking the ability to efficiently extract features, filtering, segmentation, and matching. This is evident by obtaining 100% accuracy for PTB, MIT-BHI, CEBSDB, CYBHI, ECG-ID, and in-house ECG-BG database in spite of noisy, unhealthy ECG signals while performing five-fold cross-validation. In addition, an average of 2.11% EER among 1,694 subjects is obtained.

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

4.6
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