skip to main content
10.1145/1413634.1413668acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdimeaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Biometric tendency recognition and classification system: an artistic approach

Published:10 September 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Biometric Tendency Recognition and Classification System is a software application that continuously measures a participant's physiological responses to a given image and runs a statistical classification algorithm on the measured data that then classifies the participant into one of four categories: passive, aggressive, loyal and subversive. The system is part of an interactive art project that explores issues of authority, privacy and security in relation to biometric technologies. In this paper, we demonstrate the development of this system that exemplifies the use of biometrics within the context of art.

References

  1. Thie, L. and Fried, E. 2004. Acclair, http://www.acclair.co.uk/, accessed May 10, 2008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Hutzler, G., Gortais, B., and Drogoul, A. 2000. The Garden of Chance: A Visual Ecosystem, Leonardo, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr. 2000), 101--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gromala, D. 2003. Biomorphic Typography, TypeO Exhibition, FACT (Foundation for Art & Creative Technology), Liverpool, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilchrist, B. and Bradley, J. 1996. Divided by Resistance. http://www.artemergent.org.uk/dbr/dbr.html, acessed June 29, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rosenboom, D. 1976. Biofeedback and the Arts. Vancouver: A.R.C. Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Miranda, E. R., 2006. Biosignal Interfaces. In New Digital Musical Instruments: Control And Interaction Beyond the Keyboard. A-R Editions, Middleton, WI, 173--217.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Picard, R. W. 1995. Affective Computing, M.I.T Media Laboratory Perceptual Computing Section Technical Report No. 321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Thie, L., and Fried, E. 2005. Acclairism: questioning biometric technology through an airport security clearance system. CHI'05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Portland, OR, USA: ACM, 1148--1149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thought technology Ltd. http://www.thoughttechnology.com/, accessed May 6, 2008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebersole, J. S. 1991. EEG dipole modeling in complex partial epilepsy. Brain Topography, Volume 4, Number 2 (Dec. 1991), 113--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Drake, M. E., Pakalnis, A., Andrews, J. M., and Bogner, J. E. 1990. Nocturnal Sleep Recording with Cassette EEG in Chronic Headaches. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, Volume 30, Issue 9 (Sep. 1990), 600--603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Luck, S. J. 2005. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., and John, E. R. 1965. Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty. Science, 150 (3700), 1187--1188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. 1989. Detection of Guilty Knowledge with ERPs. Psychophysiology, 26:58. (Abstract of an address presented at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Oct. 1989).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Farwell, L. A. 1993. Brain MERMERs: Detection of FBI Agents and Crime-Relevant Information with the Farwell MERA System. Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Makeig, T. H., counsel to Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell. Brain Fingerprinting Testing in the case of Harrington v. State, http://www.brainwavescience.com/LegalIssuesinAdmissibility.php, accessed May 5, 2008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Cram, J. R., Kasman, G. S., and Holtz, J. 1998. Introduction to Surface Electromyography. Aspen Publishers Inc.; Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Dimberg, U. 1997. Social fear and expressive reactions to social stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Volume 38, Issue 3 (Sep. 1997), 171--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Shaver, B. A. Jr, Brusilow, S. W., and Cooke, R. E. 1962. Origin of the galvanic skin response. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 110 (Jul. 1962), 559--564.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fenz, W. D. and Epstein, S. 1967. Gradients of Physiological Arousal in Parachutists as a Function of an Approaching Jump. Psychosomatic Medicine, 29, 33--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ranta-aho, P. O., Tarvainen M. P., Valkonen-Korhonen M., Georgiadis S. D., Lehtonen J., Niskanen J-P, and Karjalainen P. A. 2006. On Correlation Between Single-Trial ERP and GSR Responses: a Principal Component Regression Approach. 28th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, New York, August 30-September 3, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruzelier, J. H., and Brow T. D. 1985. Psychophysiological evidence for a state theory of hypnosis and susceptibility. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Volume 29, Issue 3, 287--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. SQLite. http://www.sqlite.org, accessed May 10, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. BTRCS. http://www.sfu.ca/~cca73/batrcs_src.zip, accessed June 29, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Cover, T. and Hart, P. 1967. Nearest Neighbor Pattern Classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. Volume 13, Issue 1 (Jan. 1967), 21--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mitchell, T. M. 1997. Instance-based Learning. In Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 230--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Luck, S. J. 2005. Averaging, Artifact Rejection, and Artifact Correction. In An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 131--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Carlat, D. 2008. Mind Readers. In Wired Magazine (Jun. 2008), 120--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Biometric tendency recognition and classification system: an artistic approach

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        DIMEA '08: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts
        September 2008
        551 pages
        ISBN:9781605582481
        DOI:10.1145/1413634

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        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]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 September 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        DIMEA '08 Paper Acceptance Rate59of77submissions,77%Overall Acceptance Rate59of77submissions,77%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader