|
|
|
Performance:
The
following table shows the state of art of some biometric systems:
|
State of art of
biometric recognition systems |
|
Biometrics
 |
EER |
FAR |
FRR |
Subjects |
Comment |
Reference |
|
Face |
n.a. |
1 % |
10 % |
37437 |
Varied lighting,
indoor/outdoor |
FRVT (2002) |
|
Fingerprint |
2 % |
2 % |
2 % |
100 |
Rotation and
exaggerated skin distortion |
FVC (2004) |
|
Hand geometry |
1 % |
2 % |
0.1 % |
129 |
With rings and
improper placement |
(2005) |
|
Iris |
< 1 % |
0.94 % |
0.99 % |
1224 |
Indoor environment |
ITIRT (2005) |
|
Iris |
0.01 % |
0.0001 % |
0.2 % |
132 |
Best conditions |
NIST (2005) |
|
Keystrokes |
1.8 % |
7 % |
0.1 % |
15 |
During 6 months
period |
(2005) |
|
Voice |
6 % |
2 % |
10 % |
310 |
Text independent
|
NIST (2004) |
One simple but artificial way to judge a system is by EER, but not all the
authors provided it. Moreover, there are two particular values of FAR and
FRR to show how one parameter can change depending on the other. For
fingerprint there are two different results, the one from 2003 is older
but it was performed on a huge set of people, while in 2004 much less
people were involved but stricter conditions have been applied. For iris,
both references belong to the same year, but one was performed on more
people, the other one is the result of a competition between several
universities so, even if the sample is much smaller, it could reflect
better the state of art of the field.
Want To Know more with
Video ???
Contact for more learning: webmaster@freehost7com
Home
|