1. Iris Recognition Device Usability as Observed in Comparative Testing The International Workshop on Usability and Biometrics 24 June 2008 Michael Thieme Director of Special Projects International Biometric Group mthieme@biometricgroup.com Copyright © 2008 International Biometric Group

2. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 2© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 2 Topics Iris recognition capture device landscape Application-specific usability Special considerations in mobile collection Evaluating usability through scenario testing Usability-related performance test results Observations on iris usability Potential research areas

3. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 3© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 3 About International Biometric Group International Biometric Group, LLC –Founded 1996; 40 employees –Staff in New York, DC Metro, San Francisco –Technology-neutral, vendor-independent Biometric systems integration –Design, develop, implement biometric identification systems –From mobile data collection to large-scale matching Biometric R&D and evaluation –10+ years of biometric R&D and evaluation expertise –Conducted $5m+ in USG-funded biometric R&D Biometric consulting –SMEs for USG agencies: DHS, Executive Branch, IC –Insight into biometric vendors, industry landscape –Hands-on experience with all biometric technologies

4. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 4© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 4 Iris Recognition Testing Experience Comparative Biometric Testing (1998-present) –Tested Panasonic AuthentiCam, LG2200, IrisGuard, JIRIS –Standardized scenario test methodology applicable to fingerprint, face, voice, signature, hand, vein –First test effort to measure and report false non-match and failure-to-enroll rates for iris recognition DHS Independent Testing of Iris Recognition Technology (2004-2005) –Collected approximately 120,000 irises, conducted 2b matches –First test to evaluate interoperability across multiple iris devices –First test to measure statistically significant false match rates Currently performing operational testing for tactical field deployments of iris recognition devices (GWOT) –Factors: usability, data quality

5. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 5© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 5 Iris Recognition Capture Device Landscape Considerable variation across iris recognition devices –Single vs. dual-iris imagers –Simultaneous vs. serial capture –User-adjusted vs. auto-adjusting –Fixed-focal length vs. auto-focus –Volumetric range –Audio and visual prompts –Single-capture enrollment vs. multi-capture enrollment Arguably greater inter-device variation than in any other modality

6. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 6© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 6 Application-Specific Usability Registered traveler –Educated, tech-savvy, motivated users; low habituation; low throughput demands –Perception of invasiveness not tolerable High-end access control –Motivated, habituated users; rapid throughput required –Device must be calibrated for fast capture Benefits issuance / immigration control (Pak / UAE) –Low habituation, limited familiarity with technology; motivation may be questionable; can be invasive –Deployer may deploy head brace or other harness Mobile population control –Similar to preceding, with addition of environmental challenges (see discussion below); perceived invasiveness may be the point

7. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 7© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 7 Special Considerations in Mobile Collection Mobile iris collection a dynamic area –~1m irises collected through BAT Adds the operator as a variable –What prompts are most instructive to an operator? –Does the operator have two hands free? –How close is too close? –Tactile vs. distance-based devices

8. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 8© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 8 Measuring Usability in Scenario Testing Performance metrics applicable to usability –Failure to enroll / failure to acquire rate –Transaction time –False non-match rate –These are indirect measures of usability, conflated with other factors Challenge: how to habituate users in a highly compressed test timeframe, while still allowing for device- to-device differentiation –More training penalizes easy-to-use devices; less training penalizes difficult-to-use devices –Can run multiple, sequential recognition transactions to drive muscle memory in test subjects

9. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 9© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 9 Usability and Transaction Duration

10. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 10© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 10 Usability and FTE / Non-Match Errors

11. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 11© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 11 FTA by Age Range LG IrisAccess 3000 Age Range Recognition Attempts Recognition Attempts with No Sample Acquired FTA Total 18-35159307604.77% 36-50105984153.92% 51-6536662476.74% OKI IRISPASS-WG Age Range Recognition Attempts Recognition Attempts with No Sample Acquired FTA Total 18-35158904072.56% 36-50105523563.37% 51-6537071714.61% Panasonic BM-ET300 Age Range Recognition Attempts Recognition Attempts with No Sample Acquired FTA Total 18-35159303632.28% 36-50106023713.50% 51-6536902597.02%

12. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 12© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 12 Observations on Iris Usability Iris recognition trails most other biometrics in terms of usability, but improvement is continual Dual-iris mirror imagers are problematic –Adjustment for stronger eyes lead to misalignment, looking with wrong eye – leads to failures or off-axis captures –Difficult to develop an interface intuitive for non-engineers –Primary value is in reducing sequencing errors, not simplifying capture Older users have more difficulty interacting with devices –Vision? Technology exposure? Other factors… Substantial progress has been made in vicinity capture –User stands in specified area, looks in general direction of imager; no explicit alignment –Attempt to eliminate problem of initial orientation (distance from device, where to look)

13. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 13© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 13 Potential Research Areas Enrollment / recognition through multiple, lower-quality video frames Addressing dominant and weak eyes Correcting sequence errors Usability as a function of operator skills (mobile)

14. © Copyright 2007 International Biometric Group Page 14© Copyright 2008 International Biometric Group Page 14 Contact Michael Thieme mthieme@biometricgroup.com 212-809-9491 (NY Office) 917-375-8206 (Mobile)