MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268339064 · doi:10.1109/tim.2015.2503863

ECG Authentication for Mobile Devices

2015· article· en· W2268339064 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Arteaga-Falconi, Hussein Al Osman, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasswordBiometricsLoginComputer scienceAuthentication (law)Mobile phoneMobile deviceMobile computingMobile telephonyComputer securityReal-time computingComputer networkMobile radioWorld Wide WebTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional mobile login methods, like numerical or graphical passwords, are vulnerable to passive attacks. It is common for intruders to gain access to personal information of their victims by watching them enter their passwords into their mobile screens from a close proximity. With this in mind, a mobile biometric authentication algorithm based on electrocardiogram (ECG) is proposed. With this algorithm, the user will only need to touch two ECG electrodes (lead I) of the mobile device to gain access. The algorithm was tested with a cell phone case heart monitor in a controlled laboratory experiment at different times and conditions with ten subjects and also with 73 records obtained from the Physionet database. The obtained results reveal that our algorithm has 1.41% false acceptance rate and 81.82% true acceptance rate with 4 s of signal acquisition. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach on mobile authentication that uses ECG biometric signals and it shows a promising future for this technology. Nonetheless, further improvements are still needed to optimize accuracy while maintaining a short acquisition time for authentication.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations197
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207