Fingerprint Patterns and the Analysis of Gender Differences in the Patterns Based on the U Test

Lidong Wang^1, and Cheryl Ann Alexander²

¹Department of Engineering Technology, Mississippi Valley State University, Itta Bena, USA

²Department of Nursing, University of Phoenix, Tempe, USA

Cite this paper:
Lidong Wang and Cheryl Ann Alexander. Fingerprint Patterns and the Analysis of Gender Differences in the Patterns Based on the U Test. International Transaction of Electrical and Computer Engineers System. 2014; 2(3):88-92. doi: 10.12691/iteces-2-3-2

Abstract

The testing and frequency distribution analysis of African American fingerprint patterns (loop, whorl, and arch) was conducted. It was shown that loops are the most common, whorls are the second most common, and arches are the least common with a very small percentage (4.33%). Most loops are ulnar loops while only 4.47% loops are radial loops. Of the total arches, 61.54% arches are plain arches and 38.46% arches are tented arches. A comparative study of gender difference in African American fingerprint patterns was conducted using a non-parametric method based on the U test. The U test results show that there is no significant gender difference in fingerprint patterns between African American males and females at the 0.05 level of significance.

Keywords:
fingerprint system information technology fingerprint pattern loop whorl arch flat fingerprint rolled fingerprint slap fingerprint U test

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Josphineleela. R, M.R Amakrishnan, “An Efficient Automatic Attendance System Using Fingerprint Reconstruction Technique,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 10 (3), March 2012.
[2]	A. Hicklin and C. Reedy, “Implications of the IDENT/IAFIS: Image Quality Study for Visa Fingerprint Processing,” Technical Report, Mitretek Systems, October 31, 2002.
[3]	W. Craig, F. Patricia, and C. Brian, “SlagsegII-slap fingerprint segmentation evaluation II testing procedure and results.” Technical Report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2009.
[4]	Yong-Liang Zhang, Gang Xiao, Yan-Miao Li, Hong-Tao Wu, Ya-Ping Huang, “Slap fingerprint segmentation for live-scan devices and ten-print cards,” 2010 International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 1180-1183.
[5]	U.S. Department of Justice, “National fingerprint-based applicant check study (N-FACS),” Criminal Justice Information Services Division - Federal Bureau of Investigation, Technical Report IAFIS-DOC-07054-1.0, April 2004.
[6]	Anil K. Jain, “Automatic Fingerprint Matching Using Extended Feature Set, Michigan State University,” Award Final Report, Award Number: 2007-RG-CX-K183, August 23, 2011.
[7]	Mayank Vatsa, Quality Induced Secure Multiclassifier Fingerprint Verification using Extended Feature Set, Ph.D. Dissertation, West Virginia University, 2008.
[8]	Rohan Nadgir and Arun Ross, “Roll versus Plain Prints: An Experimental Study Using the NIST SD 29 Database,” Technical Report, West Virginia University, 2006.
[9]	Alaa Ahmed Abbood, Ghazali Sulong, Fingerprint Classification Techniques: A Review, International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 11 (1), January 2014, pp. 111-122.
[10]	Prateek Rastogi, Keerthi R Pillai, “A study of fingerprints in relation to gender and blood group,” J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 32 (1), pp. 11-14.
[11]	Cross Match Technologies, Inc., LSMS with 10-Print Scanner Customer Training Guide, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, USA, 2007.
[12]	New Mexico Department of Health, Division of Health Improvement, Fingerprint Techniques Manual.
[13]	Navrit Kaur Johal, Amit Kamra, “A Novel Method for Fingerprint Core Point Detection,” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 2 (4), April-2011, pp. 1-6.
[14]	J. E. Freund and B. M. Perles, Statistics: A First Course. (8th Ed.), Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.