28 Blinks Later: Tackling Practical Challenges of Eye
Simon Eberz‚ Giulio Lovisotto‚ Kasper Rasmussen‚ Vincent Lenders and Ivan Martinovic
Abstract
In this work we address three overlooked practical challenges of continuous authentication systems based on eye movement biometrics: (i) changes in lighting conditions, (ii) task dependent features and the (iii) need for an accurate calibration phase. We collect eye movement data from 22 participants. To measure the effect of the three challenges, we collect data while varying the experimental conditions: users perform four different tasks, lighting conditions change over the course of the session and we collect data related to both accurate (user-specific) and inaccurate (generic) calibrations. To address changing lighting conditions, we identify the two main sources of light, i.e., screen brightness and ambient light, and we propose a pupil diameter correction mechanism based on these. We find that such mechanism can accurately adjust for the pupil shrinking or expanding in relation to the varying amount of light reaching the eye. To account for inaccurate calibrations, we augment the previously known feature set with new features based on binocular tracking, where the left and the right eye are tracked separately. We show that these features can be extremely distinctive even when using a generic calibration. We further apply a cross-task mapping function based on population data which systematically accounts for the dependency of features to tasks (e.g., reading a text and browsing a website lead to different eye movement dynamics). Using these enhancements, even while relaxing assumptions about the experimental conditions, we show that our system achieves significantly lower error rates compared to previous work. For intra- task authentication, without user-specific calibration and in variable screen brightness and ambient lighting, we achieve an equal error rate of 3.93% with only two minutes of training data. For the same setup but with constant screen brightness (e.g., as for a reading task) we can achieve equal error rates as low as of 1.88%.