A Comparison of Handwriting Grip Kinetics Associated with Authentic and Well-Practiced Bogus Signatures

Ghali, Bassma; Mamun, Khondaker A.; Chau, Tom

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18476-0_26

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The signatures studied herein can be considered free-hand or skilled forgeries given the extended practice period [36]. Overall, our findings corroborate previous reports that grip kinetics, albeit analyzed from a topographic perspective, generally do not differ significantly between well-practiced and authentic signatures [37].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Grip Kinetic Profile Variability in Adult Signature Writing

Ghali¹,

Mamun²,

Chau³

2013

J Biomet Biostat

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies of handwriting grip kinetics have demonstrated the ability to classify writers based on the topography of grip forces associated with signature writing. However, the topographic representation requires a large array of individual sensors in practice. The possibility of differentiating participants on the basis of a summative, temporal force profile is yet unknown. In this study, we investigated the variability of features derived from a time-evolving total grip force profile. Using an instrumented writing utensil, twenty adult participants provided 600 samples of a well-practised bogus signature over a period of 10 days. Deploying a combination of temporal, spectral and information-theoretic features, a linear discriminant analysis classifier outperformed nonparametric and nonlinear classifier alternatives and discriminated among participants with an average misclassification rate of 5.8% as estimated by cross-validation. These results suggest the existence of a unique kinetic profile for each writer even when generating the same written product. Our findings highlight the potential of using grip kinetics as a biometric measure. Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics Journa l o f B io m etrics & B io s ta tistics

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%