Table 4 Comparison of continuous authentication approaches.
Study | Modality | Method/Model | Accuracy | EER (%) | FAR (%) | FRR (%) | Key Findings | Usability Metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBSA | Multimodal (Keystroke + Gait) | WTF + ACF | 98.25% | 2.35 | 2.5 | 2.5 | High accuracy and usability, combining keystroke and gait biometrics using a dynamic scoring algorithm. | High |
Keystroke Dynamics | Transformer-based Neural Network | 95.2% | 2.12 | 3.3 | 2.8 | Real-time keystroke authentication using Transformer architecture. | Medium | |
Gait Biometrics (wrist) | LSTM + GRU Hybrid Model | 96.8% | 3.7 | 2.5 | 2.0 | Enhances temporal gait feature extraction for continuous authentication. | Medium | |
Multimodal (Keystroke + Gait) | Deep Fusion Network | 97.9% | 3.4 | 1.8 | 1.9 | Gait and keystroke fusion with deep learning reduces spoofing attempts. | High | |
Multimodal (Keystroke + Voice) | CNN + Autoencoder | 97.3% | 2.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | Combines keystroke and voice features, resisting impersonation attacks. | Medium | |
Gait Biometrics (smartphone) | Siamese Neural Networks | 94.7% | 4.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | Smartphone-based gait authentication with some sensor inconsistencies. | Low | |
Multimodal (Gait + Face) | CNN + Blockchain | 99.8% | 1.4 | N/A | N/A | Blockchain integration for continuous gait and face authentication security. | High | |
Multimodal (Keystroke + Mouse) | Random Forest + SVM | 97.5% | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.1 | Keystroke and mouse biometrics achieve high accuracy for continuous monitoring. | Medium | |
Gait Biometrics (wrist) | BiLSTM + Autoencoder | 96.4% | 3.9 | 2.7 | 2.5 | Enhances wrist-based gait dynamics for low-resource continuous authentication. | Medium | |
Multimodal (Keystroke + Gait) | Ensemble of CNN + LSTM | 98.1% | 2.6 | 2.2 | 1.9 | Combines keystroke and gait biometrics for seamless continuous authentication. | High |