This paper advances the state of the art in human examination of iris images by (1) assessing the impact of different iris conditions in identity verification, and (2) introducing an annotation step that improves the accuracy of people's decisions. In a first experimental session, 114 subjects were asked to decide if pairs of iris images depict the same eye (genuine pairs) or two distinct eyes (impostor pairs). The image pairs sampled six conditions: (1) easy for algorithms to classify, (2) difficult for algorithms to classify, (3) large difference in pupil dilation, (4) disease-affected eyes, (5) identical twins, and (6) post-mortem samples. In a second session, 85 of the 114 subjects were asked to annotate matching and non-matching regions that supported their decisions. Subjects were allowed to change their initial classification as a result of the annotation process. Results suggest that: (a) people improve their identity verification accuracy when asked to annotate matching and non-matching regions between the pair of images, (b) images depicting the same eye with large difference in pupil dilation were the most challenging to subjects, but benefited well from the annotation-driven classification, (c) humans performed better than iris recognition algorithms when verifying genuine pairs of post-mortem and disease-affected eyes (i.e., samples showing deformations that go beyond the distortions of a healthy iris due to pupil dilation), and (d) annotation does not improve accuracy of analyzing images from identical twins, which remain confusing for people.
Prior research has shown that the textural detail of the iris is sufficiently distinctive to distinguish identical twin siblings. However, no research has addressed the question of whether twins' irises are sufficiently similar in some sense to correctly determine that two irises are from twins. We conducted a human classification study in which participants were asked to label pairs of iris images as “twins” or “unrelated”. Participants were given three seconds to view each pair of images. We found that untrained humans can classify pairs of twins with more than 81 accuracy using the appearance of the iris alone, without any proximal image content such as eyelashes, eyelids, or tear duct visible. When expressing confident judgment, they are over 92 accurate. As the standard iris biometric algorithm ''sees'' them, the left and right irises of the same person are as different as irises of unrelated people. Similarly, in terms of iris biometric matching, the eyes of identical twins are as different as irises of unrelated people. The left and right eyes of an individual or the eyes of identical twins are examples of genetically identical irises. In experiments with human observers viewing pairs of iris images acquired using an iris biometric system, we have found that there is recognizable similarity in the left and right irises of an individual and in the irises of identical twins. This result suggests that iris texture analysis different from that performed in the standard iris biometric algorithm may be able to answer questions that iris biometrics cannot answer. Algorithms developed by the author for recognizing persons by their iris patterns have now been tested in many field and laboratory trials, producing no false matches in several million comparison tests. The recognition principle is the failure of a test of statistical independence on iris phase structure encoded by multi-scale quadrature wavelets. The combinatorial complexity of this phase information across different persons spans about 249 degrees of freedom and generates a discrimination entropy of about 3.2 b mm sup 2 over the iris, enabling real-time decisions about personal identity with extremely high confidence. The high confidence levels are important because they allow very large databases to be searched exhaustively (one-to-many "identification mode") without making false matches, despite so many chances. Biometrics that lack this property can only survive one-to-one ("verification") or few comparisons. The paper explains the iris recognition algorithms and presents results of 9.1 million comparisons among eye images from trials in Britain, the USA, Japan, and Korea. The iris codes for the left and right iris of a person have previously been reported to be uncorrelated. We replicate this result using images from 327 persons from the iris image dataset used in the Iris Challenge Evaluations. The same images are then used in an experiment in which subjects view a left and a right iris image, and judge whether they are correctly paired by similarity of iris texture. Subjects are able to distinguish between iris images belonging to the same person versus belonging to different persons with over 86 accuracy overall, and over 93 accuracy when they judge their decision as confident. Thus, there clearly is a similarity in the texture pattern of the left and right iris of the same person that can reliably be detected by novice observers with a brief viewing time. This is the first research that we are aware of that investigates the abilities of human observers in judging similarity or dissimilarity of iris texture.