Advertisement

Automatic texture characterization using Gabor filters and neurofuzzy computing

  • Beatriz Paniagua
  • Miguel A. Vega-Rodríguez
  • Juan A. Gómez-Pulido
  • Juan M. Sánchez-Pérez
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Natural manufactured materials are highly heterogeneous. The remarkable variability exhibited from one sample to another makes it impossible to find two samples with the same morphological distribution in their texture. This fact makes automatic quality measurement of the properties of naturally textured objects a desirable though challenging problem in industrial applications where costs are paramount. Cork, as a natural and heterogeneous material with fully seven quality classes, defies easy automatic quality classification. This paper describes an improved computer vision system for measuring the quality of industrial cork samples by incorporating techniques based on the biological configuration of human vision and human reasoning, such as Gabor filtering techniques and neurofuzzy computing. These techniques have provided important texture detection improvements over previous results. Neurofuzzy classification system performance has proved to be better than results obtained with other classification algorithms. The proposed neurofuzzy classifier includes in its feature space three wavelet-based texture quality features. The results obtained from the final proposed system showed an error rate of only 4.85% that is lower than previous similar systems designed for this application. The system proposed in this paper has the potential to reduce costs, time, and current conflicts in the cork industry.

Keywords

Stopper quality Cork industry Image processing Gabor filters Neurofuzzy classifier Automated visual inspection system 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rocha S, Delgadillo I, Ferrer AJ, Correia Barros A, Wells P (1998) Application of an electronic aroma sensing system to cork stopper quality control. J Agric Food Chem 46:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Corona P, Dettori S, Filigheddu MR, Maetzke F, Scotti R (2005) Site quality evaluation by classification tree: an application to cork quality in Sardinia. Eur J For Res 124:37–46Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunetti A, Cesareo R, Golosio B, Luciano P, Ruggero A (2002) Cork quality estimation by using Compton tomography. Nucl Instrum Meth B 196:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pereira H, Melo B, Pinto R (1994) Yield and quality in the production of cork stoppers. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 52:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira MJ, Santos CP, Monteiro J (2007) Texture segmentation based on fuzzy grammar for cork parquet quality control. ISIE 2007 1:1832–1837Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lima JL, Gomes-Costa P (2005) A modular approach to real-time cork classification using image processing. ETFA 2005 2:361–368Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez-Adrados JR, Lopes F, Pereira H (2000) The quality grading of cork planks with classification models based on defect characterization. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 58:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vega-Rodríguez MA, Sánchez-Pérez JM, Gómez-Pulido JA (2004) Using computer vision and FPGAs in the cork industry. MechRob 2004 1:265–270Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costa A, Pereira H (2006) Decision rules for computer-vision quality classification of wine natural cork stoppers. Am J Enol Viticult 57:210–219Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang J, Han G, Valverde JM, Griswold NC, Duque-Carrillo JF, Sánchez-Sinencio E (1997) Cork quality classification system using a unified image processing and fuzzy-neural network methodology. IEEE Trans Neural Networ 8:964–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vitrià J, Bressan M, Radeva P (2007) Bayesian classification of cork stoppers using class-conditional independent component analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 37:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapiro LG, Stockman GC (2001) Computer vision. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laws KI (1980) Rapid texture identification. SPIE Image Process for Missile Guidance 238:376–380Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Habib HA, Yousaf MH, Mohibullah M (2004) Modified laws energy descriptor for inspection of ceramic tiles. NCET 2004 1:137–140Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu CM, Chen YC, Hsieh KS (1992) Texture features for classification of ultrasonic liver images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 11:41–152Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang L, Tian LF, Steward BL, Reid JF (1999) Texture-based weed classification using Gabor wavelets and neural network for real-time selective herbicide applications. Am Soc Agric Eng Paper No. 90-7040Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang T, Kuo CCJ (1993) Texture analysis and classification with tree-structured wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Image Process 2:1057–7149Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruizinga P, Petkov N (1999) Nonlinear operator for oriented texture. IEEE Trans Image Process 8:395–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daugman JG (1985) Uncertainty relations for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters. J Opt Soc Am 2:1160–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jain AK, Farrokhnia F (1991) Unsupervised texture segmentation using Gabor filters. Pattern Recogn 24(12):1167–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basca CA, Brad R (2007) Texture segmentation: Gabor filter bank optimization using genetic algorithms. EUROCON 2007 1:331–335Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poinsot A, Yang F, Paindavoine M (2009) Small sample biometric recognition based on palmprint and face fusion. ICCGI 2009 1:118–122Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doublet J, Lepetit O, Revenu M (2006) Contact less hand recognition using shape and texture features. ICSP 2006. doi: 10.1109/ICOSP.2006.345881
  25. 25.
    Petkov N, Wieling MB (2010) Gabor filter for image processing and computer vision. http://matlabserver.cs.rug.nl/edgedetectionweb/web/edgedetection_params.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  26. 26.
    Paniagua-Paniagua B, Vega-Rodríguez MA, Gómez-Pulido JA, Sánchez-Pérez JM (2006) Comparative study of thresholding techniques to evaluate cork quality. VIIP 2006(1):441–446Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jang JSR, Sun CT, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masters T (1993) Practical neural networks recipes in C++. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith M (1993) Neural networks for statistical modeling. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rzempoluck EJ (1998) Neural network data analysis using simulnet. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park C, Ki M, Namkung J, Paik J (2006) Multimodal priority verification of face and speech using momentum back-propagation neural network. ISNN 2006 1:140–149Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li T, Zhu S, Ogihara M (2003) Using discriminant analysis for multi-class classification. ICDM 2003 1:589Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Biernacki C, Govaert G (1999) Choosing models in model-based clustering and discriminant analysis. J Statist Comput Simulation 64:49–71zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Paniagua
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Vega-Rodríguez
    • 1
  • Juan A. Gómez-Pulido
    • 1
  • Juan M. Sánchez-Pérez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Communications Technologies, Escuela PolitécnicaUniversity of ExtremaduraCáceresSpain

Personalised recommendations