skip to main content
10.1145/1362550.1362580acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fingers, veins and the grey pound: accessibility of biometric technology

Published: 28 August 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Motivation -- Fingerprint verification systems are the most widely used biometric technology, however several studies suggest that their performance deteriorates when older individuals use the technology. This research investigated both the accessibility and acceptability of biometric technology for an older population.
Research approach -- A fingerprint and a vein system were tested with a group of 36 participants, with a mean age of 65.7 years. Participants used both devices and both objective performance data and subjective measures of opinion were collected.
Findings -- The vein system performed significantly better than the fingerprint system, and was preferred by the majority of participants.
Research implications -- The relationship between user preference and device performance is complex however, and could not be fully explained through this evaluation.
Take away message -- The elderly are poorly represented in studies investigating biometric technology, though this research suggests that vein systems are a technology that could accommodate this demographic.

References

[1]
Ashbourn, J. (2000). Biometrics: Springer.
[2]
BioSec Consortium. (2004). Report on results of first phase usability testing and guidelines for developers.
[3]
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual Differences and Usage Behaviour: Revisiting a Technology Acceptance Model Assumption. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 58--77.
[4]
Celent. (2006). Biometric Technologies: Are We There Yet? Boston.
[5]
Chandra, A., & Calderon, T. (2005). Challenges and Constraints to the Diffusion of Biometrics in Information Systems. Communications of the ACM, 48(12), 101--106.
[6]
Coventry, L., Angeli, A. D., & Johnson, G. (2003). Honest It's Me! Self Service Verification. Proceedings of CHI 2003.
[7]
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and End User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318--339.
[8]
European Commission. (2005). Biometrics at the Frontiers: Assessing the Impact on Society: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
[9]
IBG. (2006). Comparative Biometric Testing: Round 6 Public Report: International Biometrics Group.
[10]
IBG (2007) Biometrics Market and Industry Report 2007--2012. http://www.biometricgroup.com/reports/public/market_report.html
[11]
Langenderfer, J., & Linnhoff, S. (2005). The Emergence of Biometrics and Its Effect on Consumers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Volume 39(2), 314.
[12]
Mansfield, T., Kelly, G., Chandler, D., & Kane, J. (2001). Biometric Product Testing Final Report: National Physics Laboratory.
[13]
McGinity, M. (2005). Let Your Fingers Do the Talking. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), 21--23.
[14]
Modi, S. K., & Elliott, S. J. (2006). Impact of Image Quality on Performance: Comparison of Young and Elderly Fingerprints. International Conference on Recent Advances in Soft Computing.
[15]
Toledano, D. T., Pozo, R. F., Trapote, A. H., & Gomez, L. H. (2006). Usability evaluation of multi-modal biometric verification systems. Interacting with Computers, (18) 1101--1122.
[16]
UKPS. (2005). UK Passport Service Biometrics Enrolment Trial.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Biometrics: Accessibility challenge or opportunity?PLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.019411113:3(e0194111)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2018
  • (2015)Time evolution of face recognition in accessible scenariosHuman-centric Computing and Information Sciences10.1186/s13673-015-0043-05:1Online publication date: 8-Aug-2015
  • (2013)Usability Study of Fingerprint and Palmvein Biometric Technologies at the ATMInternational Journal of Technology and Human Interaction10.4018/jthi.20130101069:1(78-95)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ECCE '07: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!
August 2007
334 pages
ISBN:9781847998491
DOI:10.1145/1362550
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

  • The British Computer Society
  • ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
  • SIGCHI: Specialist Interest Group in Computer-Human Interaction of the ACM
  • Interactions, the Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group of the BCS
  • Middlesex University, London, School of Computing Science
  • European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
  • EACE: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics
  • Brunel University, West London, Department of Information Systems and Computing

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 August 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. accessibility
  2. biometrics
  3. older users
  4. usability

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ECCE07
Sponsor:
ECCE07: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2007
August 28 - 31, 2007
London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Biometrics: Accessibility challenge or opportunity?PLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.019411113:3(e0194111)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2018
  • (2015)Time evolution of face recognition in accessible scenariosHuman-centric Computing and Information Sciences10.1186/s13673-015-0043-05:1Online publication date: 8-Aug-2015
  • (2013)Usability Study of Fingerprint and Palmvein Biometric Technologies at the ATMInternational Journal of Technology and Human Interaction10.4018/jthi.20130101069:1(78-95)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013
  • (2011)Usability evaluation of voiceprint authentication in automated telephone bankingInteracting with Computers10.1016/j.intcom.2010.10.00123:1(57-69)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011
  • (2010)Posture, Position BiometricsContemporary Ergonomics 200810.1201/9780203883259.pt6(121-126)Online publication date: 20-Jan-2010
  • (2009)An Investigation of Predictive Profiling from Handwritten Signature DataProceedings of the 2009 10th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition10.1109/ICDAR.2009.94(1305-1309)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2009

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media