It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Biometric authentication is recently used for verification someone’s identity according to their physiological and behavioural characteristics. The most popular biometric techniques are fingerprints, facial and voices recognition. However, these techniques have disadvantage in which it can be easily to be imitated and mimicked by hackers to access a device or a system. Therefore, this study proposed electroencephalogram (EEG) as a biometric technique to encounter this problem. The wavelet packet decomposition is explored in this study for feature extraction method. The wavelet packet decomposition feature is represented in the average wavelet, root mean squared (RMS) wavelet and power wavelet were selected as features to extract a meaningful information from the original EEG signal based on the visual representation. These features were applied to classify between familiar and unfamiliar image responses (visual representation) and to recognize 13 subjects by using Support Vector Machine (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) and Random Forest (RF). The analysis of the classification between familiar and unfamiliar images responses obtained that gamma frequency (30 – 45 Hz) achieved the highest correct recognition rate (CRR) and KNN obtained the accuracy of 92.8% was obtained with KNN in the classification between familiar and unfamiliar image responses. Using the gamma frequency band, the classification between the EEG responses of the 13 subjects was evaluated using the percentage of false acceptance rate (FAR) and false rejection rate (FRR). From the overall view, the value of FAR is lower than FRR. These values were used in authentication system as threshold for security level. As the result of classification between the subjects, SVM performed better compared as KNN and RF in which the error rate for acceptance of unauthorized person and rejection of authorized person were the lowest.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Biomechanics, Signals and Modeling Cluster, Sport Engineering Research Centre (SERC), Faculty of Electronic Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) Arau, Perlis, Malaysia.
2 Department of Electronics and Communications Engineering, John Gokingweig Jr. College of Engineering De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines