Why the study?
Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of electrocardiogram (ECG) as a physiological signature, prompting investigation into its potential as a biometric trait for individual identification and authentication.
Can electrocardiogram (ECG) be used as a biometric trait for the identification and authentication of individuals?
Can electrocardiogram (ECG) be used as a biometric trait for the identification and authentication of individuals?
ECG signals, processed via cardiac cycles or scalograms, show high accuracy for biometric authentication and identification.
ECG biometrics may enable identification; leaves open large-scale validation for reliability and privacy before any clinical use.
Recently, several studies have demonstrated the potential of electrocardiogram (ECG) to be used as a physiological signature for biometric systems (BS). We investigated the potential of ECG as a biometric trait for the identification and authentication of individuals. We used data from a public database, CYBHi, containing two off-the-person records from 63 subjects, separated by 3 months. For the BS, two templates were generated: (1) cardiac cycles (CC) and (2) scalograms. The identification with CC was performed with LDA, kNN, DT, and SVM, whereas a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a distance-based algorithm were used for scalograms. The authentication was performed with a distance-based algorithm, with a leave-one-out cross validation, for impostors evaluation. The identification system yielded accuracies of 79.37% and 69.84% for CC with LDA and scalograms with CNN, respectively. The authentication yielded an accuracy of 90.48% and an impostor score of 13.06% for CC, and it had an accuracy of 98.42% and an impostor score of 14.34% for scalograms. The obtained results support the claim that ECG can be successfully used for personal recognition. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to thoroughly compare templates and methodologies to optimize the performance of an ECG-based biometric system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: