1 / 29

Gait recognition under non-standard circumstances

Gait recognition under non-standard circumstances. Kjetil Holien. Disposition. Research questions Introduction Gait as a biometric feature Analysis Experiment setup Results Conclusion Questions. 1/27. Research questions. Main research questions:

phiala
Download Presentation

Gait recognition under non-standard circumstances

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gait recognition under non-standard circumstances Kjetil Holien

  2. Disposition • Research questions • Introduction • Gait as a biometric feature • Analysis • Experiment setup • Results • Conclusion • Questions 1/27

  3. Research questions • Main research questions: • To what extent is it possible to recognize a person under different circumstances? • Do the different circumstances have any common features? • Sub research question: • Do people walk in the same way given the same circumstances? 2/27

  4. Introduction • Authentication can occur in three ways: • Something you know, password or PIN code. • Something you has, key or smartcard. • Something you are, biometrics. • Biometrics are divided into: • Physiological: properties that normally do not change, fingerprints and iris. • Behavioral: properties that are learned, such as signature and gait. 3/27

  5. Gait as a biometric feature Three main approaches: • Machine Vision based. • Floor Sensor based. • Wearable Sensor based (our approach). 4/27

  6. Machine Vision • Obtained from the distance • Image/video processing • Unobtrusive • Surveillance and forensic applications 5/27

  7. Floor Sensor • Sensors on the floor • Ground reaction forces/ heel-to-toe ratio • Unobtrusive • Identification 6/27

  8. Wearable sensors • Sensor attached to the body • Measure acceleration • Signal processing • Unobtrusive • Authentication 7/27

  9. Performances of related work 8/27

  10. Gait analysis • Sensor records acceleration in three directions: • X (horizontal) • Y (vertical) • Z (lateral) • Average cycle method: • Detect cycles within a walk. • A cycle consist of a doublestep (left+right). • Average the detected cycles (e.g. mean, median). • Compute distance between average cycles. • Euclidian, Manhattan, DTW, derivatitve 9/27

  11. Average cycle method • Compute resultant vector: • Time interpolation: every 1/100th sec • Noise reduction: Weighted Moving Average • Step detection • Average cycle creation 10/27

  12. Raw data, resultant vector 11/27

  13. Time interpolation and noise reduction 12/27

  14. Step detection (1/2) 13/27

  15. Step detection (2/2) • Consist of several sub-phases: • Estimate cycle length • Indicate amplitude details • Detect starting location • Detect rest of the steps 14/27

  16. Creation of average cycle • Pre-processing methods: • Normalize to 100 samples • Adjust acceleration • Align maximum points • Normalize amplitude • Skip irregular cycles • Create average cycle: • Mean • Median • Trimmed Mean • Dynamic Time Warping 15/27

  17. Cycles overlaid 16/27

  18. Average cycle, mean 17/27

  19. Experiment setup • Main experiment: • 60 participants, two sessions of collection. • 1st session: 6 normal walks, 8 fast and 8 slow. • 2nd session: 6 normal walks, 8 circle walks (4 left and 4 right). • Sub-experiment: • 5 participants walking 40 sessions 2 months. • Each session consisted of 4 walks in the morning and 4 walks in the evening. Sensor was always at the left hip. 18/27

  20. Results • Best results when: • Normalize to 100 samples. • Adjust acceleration. • Aligned maximum points. • Removed irregular cycles. • Mean and median average cycle. • Dynamic Time Warping as distance metric. 19/27

  21. Normal walking 20/27

  22. Other circumstances 21/27

  23. All circumstances • Normal vs other circumstances • EER between 15-30% • Multi-template • 1 template for each circumstance, the others as input • EER = 5.05% 22/27

  24. Common features • Cycle length: • Normal: [95..125], average of 109 samples • Fast: [80..110], average of 96 samples • Slow: [110..180], average of 137 samples • Circle same as normal • Amplitudes related to cycle length 23/27

  25. Long-term experiment (1/3) • Morning vs morning / evening vs evening • Compare sessions at different days intervals 24/27

  26. Long-term experiment (2/3) • Linear regression to compute a linear function (y = a + bx). • Use hypothesis testing: • H0: b = 0 (stable walk) • H1: b > 0 (more unstable walk) • Results: • Rejected H0 for 90%  distance increases as time passes by. 25/27

  27. Long-term experiment (3/3) • Morning vs evening (same day) and evening vs the consecutive morning • No difference in the average scores. • Between 30% and 70% increase compared with 1 day interval scores. 26/27

  28. Conclusion • Extremely good EER when comparing the circumstance with itself. • Different circumstances seems to be distinct  hard to transform X to normal. • Good results when using a multi-template solution. • Gait seems to be unstable to some extent  need a dynamic template. 27/27

  29. Questions? Thanks for listening!

More Related