Presentation of

Masters thesis
Gait analysis: Is it possible to
learn to walk like someone else?
yvind Stang

Introduction
Definition of biometrics: The science and
technology of measuring and analyzing
biological data. (http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com)
2 categories: Behavioural and nonbehavioural
Behavioural: Keystroke, voice, gait.
Non-behavioural: Fingerprints, face, iris.
Impersonation is a well-known problem.

Gait
The gait is a feature that is different from
person to person.
Because of this, it may be used as a
biometric.
The aim of gait authentication is to look at
different features in a persons gait, and
based on these, analyze whether they
belong to Person X or not.

Gait cycle
Jain et al.: Biometrics Personal Identification in Networked Society
(1999)

Gait
3 main categories of gait authentication.
Image based gait authentication: To use (a) camera(s)
to capture images of a walking person, and then
analyzing these images, looking for certain features.
Floor-sensor based gait authentication.
Accelerometer based gait authentication: To use a
sensor containing an accelerometer, which measures
the acceleration in three directions, and then analyze
the gait based on this acceleration data.

Problem
(and relevant questions)
How easy or difficult is it to learn to
impersonate someones gait?
If it is easy, what does that say about the
security of gait authentication?
Are some peoples gait more difficult to
learn than others? => Sheep.
Are some people better impersonators
than others? => Wolves.

Previous work
Robustness of biometric gait authentication
against impersonation attack by Davrondzhon
Gafurov, Einar Snekkenes, and Torkjel Sndrol.
Accelerometer based.
Distance metric: The Cycle Length Method.
Their null-hypothesis (H0): Deliberately trying to
imitate another person will give results.
Results: p-value=0.0005, i.e. too little evidence
to support the hypothesis.

Prototype
Created a prototype that reads acceleration
data from a (ZSTAR) sensor.
The acceleration data is then plotted in a
coordinate system as 4 graphs, i.e. the xgraph, the y-graph, the z-graph, and the rgraph.
The r-graph is the resultant graph, where
each plot is calculated using the following
formula: Ri X i2 Yi 2 Z i2

Prototype
The prototype reads and plots gait data
continually in 5 seconds before it stops.
Created 5 gait templates of different degrees of
difficulty (each lasting 5 seconds).
Template A: Two slow steps. Rather trivial.
Template B: A few more steps. Also rather trivial.
Template C: The authors natural gait.
Template D: Fast and shuffling steps. Difficult.
Template E: Slow, oscillating steps. Difficult.

Prototype
When the program starts, the 4 graphs from one
of the templates are plotted in the coordinate
system.
When we give instructions to the program to start
reading the acceleration data, it reads from the
sensor, and plots the incoming data in the same
coordinate system.
After it has read and plotted in 5 seconds, it
stops, and the correlation between the templates
r-graph, and the users r-graph is calculated.

Prototype
A score between 0 and
100 is given, which is
based on this correlation
value.
Correlation between 2
datasets A=(a1,,an) and
B=(b1,,bn) (Pearsons r):
In order to get a score
between 0 and 100, the
absolute value of the
correlation coefficient is
multiplied with 100.

(a a)(b b)
(a a) (b b)
i

score 100

The Experiment
On the authentication lab on GUC.
13 participants, all men, but of different
weight and height.
The coordinate system was displayed on a
big screen, so the participants could see
the template graphs while they were
walking towards it.
They attempted to imitate each template
15 times.

The Experiment
The participants did not see the actual
gait, but were given a simple explanation
at the beginning of each template.
The aim was to see if their scores had a
positive increase from the beginning
(attempt no 1) to the end (attempt no 15).
The score from each attempt was
displayed in a pop-up box after the
attempt was completed.

After one attempt, the screen

looked e.g. like this:

Results
Linear regression: Finding a linear
function, y=mx+b, that fits to the data.
Tells us whether the tendency in data is
increasing (by having a positive m) or
decreasing (by having a negative m).
We used Linear regression in order to
analyze the progression from attempt no 1
to attempt no 15.

Template A: m=0,089 (5,08 degrees)

Template B: m=0,041 (2,37 degrees)

Template C: m=0,051 (2,90 degrees)

Template D: m=0.036 (2.05 degrees)

Template E: m=0.075 (4.30 degrees)

Analysis of results
In all 5 templates, there is a increase in the
scores from the 1st to the 15th attempt.
The increase is not too large.
Some participants scored generally high, but
had a small increase in the scores. (Bad?)
Some participants scored generally low, but had
a large increase in the scores. (Good?)

A new attempt to analyze the results

Since Template C contained the authors natural
gait, it was interesting to see how good he
managed to score when trying to walk like
himself.
Template C => 150 attempts.
The median value was 50.73 points, i.e. the
author scores above 50 points half of the times.
How many and how often did the participants
manage to exceed 50 points?
Threshold = 50 pts.

Template

# of times

Never: 9/13
1 time: 4/13

30.8%

Never: 7/13
1 time: 2/13
2 times: 2/13
5 times: 1/13
6 times: 1/13

46.2%

Never: 6/13
1 times: 3/13
2 times: 2/13
3 times: 1/13
9 times: 1/13

53.8%

Never: 8/13
1 time: 4/13
3 times: 1/13

38.5%

Never: 10/13
2 times: 2/13
5 times: 1/13

23.1%

Conclusion
It seems rather easy to learn to walk like
someone else. Many participants (20%60%) managed to exceed the authors
median score.
If our conclusion turns out to be true, then
gait authentication should not be used as
the only authentication technique.
The risk of impersonation will then be too
large.

What must be considered?

Wolves and sheep?

Few participants?
Few natural templates?
Too little variation between the participants?
Other distance metrics (algorithms)? Our
conclusion is not necessarily true for all
algorithms.
The graphs were not shifted before the
correlation was calculated.

Further work
A bigger experiment with more (natural)
templates.
Involving a camera.
Improved visual interactive feedback.
Sound based feedback.
Difference between different groups.
The issue of wolves and sheep.